Mullin v Salim: Negligence & Motor Accidents - Determining Liability for Subsequent Collision

In Erin Brooke Mullin and another v Rosli Bin Salim and another, the High Court of Singapore addressed a claim by Erin Brooke Mullin and her husband, Jason Elliot Mullin, against Rosli Bin Salim and Toh Yoke Chin, arising from a motor accident on 18 September 2007. Erin Brooke Mullin sustained severe injuries when Rosli Bin Salim's vehicle, after being hit by a school bus driven by Toh Yoke Chin, collided with her. The court determined the extent of liability between the two defendants for the second accident, finding Rosli Bin Salim wholly liable for the plaintiffs' claim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for the Plaintiffs

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case determining liability for a motor accident where a bus collided with a car, leading to a subsequent collision. Judgment for the plaintiffs.

1.7 Decision Date

2 March 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	Judge	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

First plaintiff sustained serious injuries in a motor accident on 18 September 2007.
The first defendant's vehicle was hit by a school bus driven by the second defendant.
After the initial collision, the first defendant accelerated instead of braking.
The first defendant's vehicle collided with two other vehicles and the first plaintiff.
The first plaintiff's right leg was amputated below the knee due to the accident.
The first defendant was convicted of rash and negligent driving and causing grievous hurt.
The first defendant consented to interlocutory judgment being entered against him for the plaintiffs’ claim.

5. Formal Citations

Erin Brooke Mullin and another v Rosli Bin Salim and another, Suit No 540 of 2010, [2012] SGHCR 9027

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2007-09-18	Motor accident occurred involving vehicles driven by the two defendants
2009-01-06	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	First defendant consented to interlocutory judgment being entered against him for the plaintiffs’ claim
2011-05-01	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
2012-03-03	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Negligence
- Outcome: The court found the first defendant wholly liable for negligence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Breach of duty of care
  - Causation
  - Intervening act
Causation
- Outcome: The court found that the first defendant's actions constituted an intervening act, breaking the chain of causation.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - 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 Law
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 to support the argument that the second defendant's negligence set off the chain of events leading to the second accident.
SBS Transit Ltd v Stafford Rosemary Anne Jane	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 211	Singapore	Cited to support the argument that but for the first accident, the first defendant would not have caused the second accident.
Mohammad Kassim Bin Sapil v Quah Lai Tee & Others	High Court	Yes	[2003] SGHC 118	Singapore	Cited to support the argument that but for the first accident, the first defendant would not have caused the second accident.
Ladd v Marshall	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1954] 1 WLR 1489	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that new evidence cannot be introduced after the trial, prejudicing the second defendant.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

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
Interlocutory judgment
Unintended acceleration

15.2 Keywords

Motor accident
Negligence
Personal injury
Singapore
High Court
Liability
Causation

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Automobile Accidents	90
Personal Injury	85
Motor Accident Law	75
Evidence	60
Criminal Procedure	50
Contract Law	30

16. Subjects

Tort
Motor Accidents
Personal Injury