AOD v AOE: Damages Assessment for Road Accident Brain Injury

In the case of AOD, a minor suing by the litigation representative AOE, against AOE, the High Court of Singapore on 2014-11-21 assessed damages arising from a road traffic accident where AOD sustained severe brain injury. The court considered claims for pain and suffering, loss of future earnings, future medical expenses, and other related costs, ultimately awarding damages to the plaintiff.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Damages awarded to the plaintiff.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Assessment of damages for AOD, a minor, who suffered severe brain injury in a road accident. The court assessed various heads of claims, including pain and suffering, loss of future earnings, and future medical expenses.

1.7 Decision Date

20 November 2014

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
AOD	Plaintiff	Individual	Damages Awarded	Won	Michael Han
AOE	Defendant	Individual	Damages Assessed	Lost	Teo Weng Kie, Shahira Anuar

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Jean Chan Lay Koon	Assistant Registrar	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Michael Han	Hoh Law Corporation
Teo Weng Kie	Tan Kok Quan Partnership
Shahira Anuar	Tan Kok Quan Partnership

4. Facts

The plaintiff, a nine-year-old boy, was knocked down by a vehicle driven by the defendant while crossing the road at a signalised pedestrian crossing.
The plaintiff sustained severe traumatic brain injury from the accident and was conveyed to the National University of Singapore Hospital in an unconscious state.
The plaintiff became a quadriplegic and required constant care for all his activities of daily living.
The plaintiff's mother had to quit her job to take care of him on a full-time basis.
The plaintiff was successfully decannulated in April 2014.
Medical experts agreed that the plaintiff would have a life expectancy of 27 years and he would live up to 38 years old.

5. Formal Citations

AOD v AOE, Suit No 1054 of 2012, [2014] SGHCR 21

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2011-07-06	Road traffic accident occurred
2011-07-06	Plaintiff conveyed to National University of Singapore Hospital in unconscious state
2011-07-17	Plaintiff underwent tracheotomy
2011-08-03	Right ventriculo-peritoneal shunt inserted
2011-08-19	Plaintiff transferred from PICU to general ward
2011-10-19	Plaintiff discharged from NUH
2012-06-01	Plaintiff transferred to KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital for follow-up and treatment
2012-12-13	Plaintiff commenced Suit No 1054 of 2012 against the defendant
2013-07-31	Interlocutory judgment entered at 100% in the plaintiff’s favour
2013-12-10	Assessment hearing commenced
2014-04-01	Plaintiff successfully decannulated
2014-11-21	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Assessment of Damages for Brain Injury
- Outcome: The court assessed damages for various heads of claim, including pain and suffering, loss of future earnings, future medical expenses, and cost of nursing care.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Pain and Suffering
  - Loss of Amenities
  - Loss of Future Earnings
  - Future Medical Expenses
  - Cost of Nursing Care
- Related Cases:
  - [1980] AC 174
  - [1979] 2 All ER 910
  - [1982] 1 WLR 816
  - [2004] 3 SLR(R) 543
  - [2003] 3 SLR(R) 601
  - [2001] 1 SLR(R) 786
  - [2012] 3 SLR 496
  - [1993] 2 SLR 536
  - [2003] SGHC 308
  - [2012] SGHCR 8
  - [2008] SGHC 33
  - [2006] 3 SLR(R) 211
  - [2011] SGCA 23
  - [2012] SGCA 4
  - [1991] 1 SLR(R) 22
  - [1983-1984] SLR(R) 388
  - [1992] 1 SLR(R) 779
  - [2010] 2 SLR 1037
  - [2008] SGHC 174
  - [2008] 3 SLR(R) 735
  - [2004] 2 SLR 361
  - [2013] 3 SLR 1113
  - [1974] QB 454
  - [1995] SGHC 43
Provisional Damages
- Outcome: The court made an order that the plaintiff may apply for further damages to be assessed if within three years of today, he requires a permanent tracheostomy as a result of contracting pneumonia.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence

10. Practice Areas

Personal Injury Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Lim Poh Choo v Camden and Islington Area Health Authority	N/A	Yes	[1980] AC 174	N/A	Cited for the principle that the award for pain and suffering compensates victims for the pain they endure, the distress of knowing their disablement and the loss of enjoyment of life generally.
Lim Poh Choo v Camden and Islington Area Health Authority	N/A	Yes	[1979] 2 All ER 910	N/A	Cited for the principle that the award for pain and suffering compensates victims for the pain they endure, the distress of knowing their disablement and the loss of enjoyment of life generally.
Birkett v Hayes	N/A	Yes	[1982] 1 WLR 816	N/A	Cited for the principle that damages in respect of pain and suffering is awarded for both future pain and suffering as well as for what the plaintiff has already endured.
TV Media Pte Ltd v De Cruz Andrea Heidi & Anor Appeal	N/A	Yes	[2004] 3 SLR(R) 543	Singapore	Cited for the principle that damages in respect of pain and suffering is awarded for both future pain and suffering as well as for what the plaintiff has already endured.
Nirumalan V Kanapathi Pillay v Teo Eng Chuan	N/A	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR(R) 601	Singapore	Cited for the observation that the application of precedents to a specific case is not a straightforward exercise.
Tan Kok Lam (next friend to Teng Eng) v Hong Choon Peng	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR(R) 786	Singapore	Cited for the principle that unconsciousness on the part of the victim would negative a claim for pain and suffering, but not for loss of amenities.
Tan Juay Mui (by his next friend Chew Chee Kim) v Sher Kuan Hock and another (Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd, co-defendant; Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd and another, this parties)	N/A	Yes	[2012] 3 SLR 496	Singapore	Cited for clarifying the principle in Tan Kok Lam regarding loss of amenities and pain and suffering.
Toon Chee Meng Eddie v Yeap Chin Hon	N/A	Yes	[1993] 2 SLR 536	Singapore	Cited as a precedent for the award of damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities in cases involving severe brain damage in young children.
Kwok Seng Fatt Jeremy v Choy Chee Hau	High Court	Yes	[2003] SGHC 308	Singapore	Cited as a precedent for the award of damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities in cases involving severe orthopaedic injuries.
Lai Wai Keong Eugene v Loo Wei Yen	N/A	Yes	[2012] SGHCR 8	Singapore	Cited as a precedent for the award of damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities in cases involving complete spinal cord injury.
Ramesh s/o Ayakanno (suing by the committee of the person and the estate, Ramiah Naragatha Vally) v Chua Gim Hock	High Court	Yes	[2008] SGHC 33	Singapore	Cited as a precedent for the award of damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities in cases involving severe head injuries.
Chong Hwa Yin v Estate of Loh Hon Fock, deceased	High Court	Yes	[2006] 3 SLR(R) 211	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the severity of pain and suffering escalates according to the length of time the plaintiff will continue to feel the pain or suffer from it.
Koh Chai Kwang v Teo Ai Ling (by her next friend, Chua Wee Bee)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] SGCA 23	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there is nothing in principle which precludes the award of loss of future earnings to an injured party who is a young child or student who has yet to embark on a career.
Lee Wei Kong (by his litigation representative Lee Swee Chit) v Ng Siok Tong	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] SGCA 4	Singapore	Cited for affirming the principle that the Court can give an award of loss of future earnings to young injured plaintiff.
Peh Diana v Tan Miang Lee	N/A	Yes	[1991] 1 SLR(R) 22	Singapore	Cited as a case where loss of future earnings was awarded to an injured plaintiff who was young at the time of the accident and had yet to commence work at the time of the trial.
Lai Wee Lian v Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1983-1984] SLR(R) 388	Singapore	Cited for the well-established principle that to avoid over-compensation, the chosen multiplier must embed discounts for two factors: the vicissitudes of life and accelerated receipt of a lump sum award.
Tay Cheng Yan v Tock Hua Bin and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR(R) 779	Singapore	Cited for the well-established principle that to avoid over-compensation, the chosen multiplier must embed discounts for two factors: the vicissitudes of life and accelerated receipt of a lump sum award.
Teo Ai Ling (by her next friend Chua Wee Bee) v Koh Chai Kwang	High Court	Yes	[2010] 2 SLR 1037	Singapore	Cited regarding the multiplier applied for a plaintiff who was expected to have about 40 years of balance working life.
Balanalagirisamy Gowri Rajeswari and another (administrators of the estate of Radhkrishnan Hari Babu, deceased) v Wong Si Wah	High Court	Yes	[2008] SGHC 174	Singapore	Cited for adopting a staged approach by applying different multiplicands to different stages of a person’s career lifespan as it considered the likelihood of increments and promotions as a person would get more experienced in his job.
Man Mohan Singh s/o Jothirambal Singh v Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR(R) 735	Singapore	Cited for applying a three-stage process when assessing the prospective careers of two young deceased brothers and allowed an average of 9.4% increase in pay for each of the stages.
Ang Leng Hock v Leo Ee Ah	N/A	Yes	[2004] 2 SLR 361	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the multiplier for future expenses is determined according to circumstances prevailing at the date of the trial.
Lai Wai Keong Eugene v Loo Wei Yen	High Court	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 1113	Singapore	Cited regarding the multiplier for future medical expenses in respect of a plaintiff who was expected to live for about 30 years.
Donnelly v Joyce	N/A	Yes	[1974] QB 454	N/A	Cited for the principle that this head of damage is recoverable not because it is the mother’s loss but because it is the plaintiff’s loss, being the reasonable cost of meeting the need created by the tort.
Kuan Kian Seng v Wong Choon Keh	High Court	Yes	[1995] SGHC 43	Singapore	Cited for the principle that this head of damage is recoverable not because it is the mother’s loss but because it is the plaintiff’s loss, being the reasonable cost of meeting the need created by the tort.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 332)	Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 332, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Traumatic Brain Injury
Quadriplegic
Loss of Future Earnings
Future Medical Expenses
Pain and Suffering
Loss of Amenities
Multiplier
Multiplicand
Provisional Damages
Decannulation
Tracheostomy

15.2 Keywords

Road accident
Brain injury
Damages
Singapore
Personal injury
Negligence

16. Subjects

Personal Injury
Damages Assessment
Road Accident

17. Areas of Law

Tort Law
Personal Injury Law
Assessment of Damages
Road Traffic Accident Law