Mullin v Salim: Negligence & Causation in Motor Accident - Liability Apportionment

In Erin Brooke Mullin and another v Rosli Bin Salim and another, the High Court of Singapore addressed the issue of liability between the first defendant, Rosli Bin Salim, and the second defendant, Toh Yoke Chin, for a motor accident that caused severe injuries to the first plaintiff, Erin Brooke Mullin. The first plaintiff sued for damages arising from the second accident, while the second plaintiff sued for post-traumatic stress disorder. The court found the first defendant wholly liable for the plaintiffs' claim, determining that his negligence caused the second accident. The second defendant was absolved of liability, and the first defendant was ordered to pay the second defendant's costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for the Second Defendant; the First Defendant is wholly liable for the plaintiffs’ claim.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment reserved

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case between Mullin v Salim concerning liability for a motor accident. The court found the first defendant wholly liable due to negligence.

1.7 Decision Date

2 February 2012

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Erin Brooke Mullin	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Allowed	Won	Sarjeet Singh s/o Gummer Singh of ACIES Law Corporation
Jason Elliot Mullin	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Allowed	Won	Sarjeet Singh s/o Gummer Singh of ACIES Law Corporation
Rosli Bin Salim	Defendant	Individual	Claim Allowed	Lost	Niru Pillai of Global Law Alliance LLC Ooi Yee Mun of Global Law Alliance LLC
Toh Yoke Chin	Defendant	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Won	Desmond Tan Yen Hau of Lee & Lee Lam Su-Yin Natalie of Lee & Lee

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lai Siu Chiu	J	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Sarjeet Singh s/o Gummer Singh	ACIES Law Corporation
Niru Pillai	Global Law Alliance LLC
Ooi Yee Mun	Global Law Alliance LLC
Desmond Tan Yen Hau	Lee & Lee
Lam Su-Yin Natalie	Lee & Lee

4. Facts

The first plaintiff sustained serious injuries in a motor accident on 18 September 2007.
The first defendant drove a vehicle that collided with the first plaintiff.
The second defendant drove a school bus that collided with the first defendant's vehicle.
The first defendant was convicted of rash and negligent driving and causing grievous hurt.
The first defendant accelerated instead of braking after the initial collision.
The first defendant's vehicle collided with other vehicles and the first plaintiff.
The first plaintiff's right leg was amputated below the knee as a result of the accident.

5. Formal Citations

Erin Brooke Mullin and another v Rosli Bin Salim and another, Suit No 540 of 2010, [2012] SGHC 27

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2007-09-18	Motor accident occurred involving vehicles driven by the two defendants.
2009-01-06	The first defendant was charged and convicted under ss 279 and 338 of the Penal Code.
2010-01-01	Suit No 540 of 2010 filed.
2011-03-01	The first defendant consented to interlocutory judgment being entered against him for the plaintiffs’ claim.
2011-05-01	The first defendant issued a Notice of Indemnity and Contribution against the second defendant.
2011-09-01	The two defendants agreed to the quantum of the second plaintiff’s claim being fixed at $10,000 subject to the issue of liability being determined between them.
2012-02-03	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Negligence
- Outcome: The court found the first defendant negligent in causing the accident.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to exercise reasonable care
  - Breach of duty of care
  - Causation
Causation
- Outcome: The court found that the first defendant's actions constituted an intervening act, breaking the chain of causation.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Intervening act
  - Chain of causation
  - Novus actus interveniens

8. Remedies Sought

Damages for personal injuries
Damages for post-traumatic stress disorder

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence

10. Practice Areas

Personal Injury Litigation
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Teng Ching Sin and Anor v Leong Kwong Sun	High Court	Yes	[1994] 1 SLR(R) 382	Singapore	Cited regarding the chain of events leading to the second accident.
SBS Transit Ltd v Stafford Rosemary Anne Jane	High Court	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 211	Singapore	Cited regarding the chain of events leading to the second accident.
Mohammad Kassim Bin Sapil v Quah Lai Tee & Others	High Court	Yes	[2003] SGHC 118	Singapore	Cited regarding the chain of events leading to the second accident.
Ladd v Marshall	N/A	Yes	[1954] 1 WLR 1489	N/A	Cited regarding the calling of expert testimony after the trial.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 16 r 8(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Motor accident
Negligence
Causation
Intervening act
Rash driving
Grievous hurt
Chain of causation
Novus actus interveniens

15.2 Keywords

motor accident
negligence
causation
personal injury
Singapore
High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Automobile Accidents	90
Personal Injury	85
Negligence	80
Evidence	60
Criminal Procedure	40
Contract Law	20

16. Subjects

Tort
Personal Injury
Motor Vehicle Accident
Civil Litigation