Asnah Bte Ab Rahman v Li Jianlin: Contributory Negligence & Pedestrian Safety at Signalised Crossings

In Asnah Bte Ab Rahman v Li Jianlin, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal regarding contributory negligence in a motor accident. Li Jianlin, the respondent, was struck by Asnah Bte Ab Rahman's vehicle while crossing a pedestrian crossing controlled by traffic lights. The appellant conceded primary liability but argued contributory negligence, claiming the respondent failed to check for traffic. The High Court found no contributory negligence. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the respondent contributorily negligent and reducing damages by 15%. Sundaresh Menon CJ dissented.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Written Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal on contributory negligence in a pedestrian accident. Court of Appeal examines pedestrian's duty at signalised crossings, apportionment of damages.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Asnah Bte Ab RahmanAppellantIndividualAppeal Allowed in PartPartial
Li JianlinRespondentIndividualDamages ReducedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Quentin LohJudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Anthony WeeUnited Legal Alliance LLC
Liew Hwee Tong EricGabriel Law Corporation
Renganathan ShankarGabriel Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Respondent was a 21-year-old National Serviceman.
  2. Appellant was a taxi driver.
  3. Accident occurred at a traffic-light controlled pedestrian crossing on Bukit Batok West Avenue 5.
  4. Respondent was crossing from Block 526 towards Block 374.
  5. Bukit Batok West Avenue 5 is a dual-carriageway road.
  6. Appellant was travelling towards Brickland Road.
  7. Respondent was hit in the second half of the crossing.
  8. Appellant's taxi was travelling at about 55km/h.
  9. Weather was fine, road surface was dry, traffic flow was light, and visibility was clear.
  10. Respondent suffered severe injuries to his head and hips.
  11. Appellant conceded primary liability and was convicted of dangerous driving.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Asnah Bte Ab Rahman v Li Jianlin, Civil Appeal No 175 of 2014, [2016] SGCA 16

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Accident occurred
Appellant convicted of dangerous driving
Civil Appeal No 175 of 2014 filed
Hearing held
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Contributory Negligence
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal found the respondent contributorily negligent, reducing damages by 15%.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to keep proper lookout
      • Apportionment of damages
      • Duty of care of pedestrians at signalised crossings
  2. Duty of Care
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that pedestrians have a duty to take reasonable care for their own safety, even at signalised crossings.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Standard of care for pedestrians
      • Foreseeability of harm
      • Reasonable precautions

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury Law
  • Motor Accident Law
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Transportation

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Cheong Ghim Fah and another v Murugian s/o RangasamyHigh CourtYes[2004] 1 SLR(R) 628SingaporeCited for the principle that a person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought to have foreseen that his failure to act prudently could result in hurting himself.
Jones v Livox Quarries LdCourt of AppealYes[1952] 2 QB 608England and WalesCited for the principle that contributory negligence depends on foreseeability of harm to oneself.
Nance v British Columbia Electric Railway Co LtdPrivy CouncilYes[1951] AC 601United KingdomCited to clarify that contributory negligence does not depend on a duty owed by the injured party to the party sued.
Butterfield v ForresterN/AYes(1809) 11 East 60N/ACited as a case manifesting injustice, as it represented the common law rule that where a claimant’s injury was caused in part by his own fault, he was wholly disentitled from claiming damages from the negligent defendant.
Bailey v GeddesCourt of AppealYes[1938] 1 KB 156England and WalesCited by the Respondent as authority for the proposition that a claimant within a pedestrian crossing can never be subject to contributory negligence. Distinguished by the court.
Davies v Swan Motor Co (Swansea) LtdN/AYes[1949] 2 KB 291N/ACited for the principle that when both the pedestrian and the driver were negligent, whoever’s conduct that was the “effective or predominant cause” of the damage would therefore be ascribed full responsibility for the damage
Grant v Sun Shipping Co LtdHouse of LordsYes[1948] AC 549United KingdomCited for the principle that a prudent man will guard against the possible negligence of others when experience shows such negligence to be common.
Fardon v Harcourt-RivingtonN/AYes(1932) 146 LT 391N/ACited for the principle that the user of the road is not bound to guard against every conceivable eventuality, but only against such eventualities that a reasonable man ought to foresee as being within the ordinary range of human experiences
Public Prosecutor v Low Kok HengHigh CourtYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 183SingaporeCited for the principle that Statutes are to be interpreted in a manner that promotes the purpose or object underlying its enactment
Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2013] 3 SLR 354SingaporeCited for the principle that the purposive interpretation is paramount and takes precedence over any other common law principles of statutory interpretation including the plain meaning rule
Beckett v Newalls Insulation Co Ltd and anotherN/AYes[1953] 1 All ER 250N/ACited for the principle that a remote probability of harm may not excuse conduct or omissions if serious injury is a possibility
Paris v Stepney Borough CouncilHouse of LordsYes[1951] AC 367United KingdomCited for the principle that a remote probability of harm may not excuse conduct or omissions if serious injury is a possibility
Latimer v A E C LtdCourt of AppealYes[1952] 2 QB 701England and WalesCited for the principle that in every case of foreseeable risk, it is a matter of balancing the risk against the measures necessary to eliminate it
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd and another (The Wagon Mound (No 2))Privy CouncilYes[1967] 1 AC 617United KingdomCited for the principle that a reasonable man would not ignore a small risk if action to eliminate it presented no difficulty, involved no disadvantage and required no expense.
Khoo Bee Keong v Ang Chun Hong and anotherHigh CourtYes[2005] SGHC 128SingaporeCited as a case where a bus failed to stop at a traffic-light controlled junction and negligently collided into a pedestrian just when he had started to cross the road, and the pedestrian was found to be contributorily negligent.
Yip Kok Meng Calvin (a minor) v Lek Yong Han (Yip Ai Puay, third party)High CourtYes[1993] 1 SLR(R) 147SingaporeCited as a case where contributory negligence was found against a pedestrian for failing to keep a proper lookout.
Chisholm v London Passenger Transport BoardCourt of AppealYes[1939] 1 KB 426England and WalesCited to restrict the holding in Bailey v Geddes to operate only in situations where the pedestrian is already in the midst of crossing the road as opposed to a situation where the pedestrian is run down immediately after he has left the pavement for the crossing
Wilkinson v Chetham-StrodeCourt of AppealYes[1940] 2 KB 310England and WalesCited to restrict the holding in Bailey v Geddes to operate only in situations where the pedestrian is already in the midst of crossing the road as opposed to a situation where the pedestrian is run down immediately after he has left the pavement for the crossing
Sparks v Edward Ash LtdN/AYes[1943] 1 All ER 1N/ACited to restrict the holding in Bailey v Geddes to operate only in situations where the pedestrian is already in the midst of crossing the road as opposed to a situation where the pedestrian is run down immediately after he has left the pavement for the crossing
Chun Sung Yong v Au Sze Hung Christopher & anorHigh CourtYes[1991] 1 HKC 556Hong KongCited as a decision by the High Court of Hong Kong where the plaintiff was a pedestrian walking across Nathan Road at the junction of Kimberley Road by way of a pedestrian crossing when he was knocked down by a car driven by the second defendant who was the first defendant’s agent, and the court reduced the damages payable by 25% for contributory negligence on the plaintiff’s part
Cheng (by his tutor Qian) v GeussensN/AYes(2014) 66 MVR 268N/ACited for the principle that the configuration of a road is relevant to determining the duty of care and the assessment of contributory negligence
Tremayne v HillCourt of AppealYes[1987] RTR 131England and WalesCited by the Respondent as authority for his proposition that contributory negligence may not be invoked against a pedestrian where the pedestrian signal is green. Distinguished by the court.
Frank v CoxN/AYes(1967) 111 Sol Jo 670N/ACited by the Respondent as authority for his proposition that contributory negligence may not be invoked against a pedestrian where the pedestrian signal is green. Distinguished by the court.
White v SaxtonN/AYes(1996) 11 PMIL 10N/ACited by the Respondent as authority for his proposition that contributory negligence may not be invoked against a pedestrian where the pedestrian signal is green. Distinguished by the court.
Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 292SingaporeCited for the principle that the rule in Browne v Dunn is not a rigid, technical rule; it is not meant to be applied mechanically as to require every single point to be put to the witness.
Town of Port Hedland v Hodder (No 2)Court of AppealYes(2012) 294 ALR 315Western AustraliaCited as an example of judicial disagreement as to the proper characterisation of the appropriate standard of care courts should adopt in assessing contributory negligence
British Fame (Owners) v MacGregor (Owners)House of LordsYes[1943] 1 AC 197United KingdomCited for the principle that a finding of apportionment is a finding upon a question, “not of principle or of positive findings of fact or law, but of proportion, of balance and relative emphasis and of weighing different considerations”
Jackson v Murray and anotherSupreme CourtYes[2015] UKSC 5United KingdomCited for the principle that the apportionment exercise is to be applied in a “rough and ready” manner, for the factors that the court is required to consider are “incapable of precise measurement” and are often “incommensurable”
Baker v WilloughbyHouse of LordsYes[1970] AC 467United KingdomCited for the principle that two aspects stand out in shaping the court’s determination of what is a “just and equitable” apportionment: first, the relative causative potency of the parties’ conduct; and second, the relative moral blameworthiness of the parties’ conduct
Eagle v Chambers (No 1)N/AYes[2003] All ER (D) 114N/ACited for the principle that two aspects stand out in shaping the court’s determination of what is a “just and equitable” apportionment: first, the relative causative potency of the parties’ conduct; and second, the relative moral blameworthiness of the parties’ conduct
Pennington v NorrisN/AYes(1956) 96 CLR 10AustraliaCited for the principle that drivers, unlike pedestrians, are in a position to cause harm. In cases of motor accidents, courts tend to hold motorists as the more culpable party having regard to the “destructive disparity” between a driver and a pedestrian
Anikin v Sierra and anotherN/AYes(2004) 211 ALR 621AustraliaCited for the principle that drivers, unlike pedestrians, are in a position to cause harm. In cases of motor accidents, courts tend to hold motorists as the more culpable party having regard to the “destructive disparity” between a driver and a pedestrian
Teubner v HumbleN/AYes(1963) 108 CLR 491AustraliaCited for the principle that apportionment is, at its core, a highly fact-sensitive exercise
Luong Thi Trang Hoang Kathleen v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2010] 1 SLR 707SingaporeCited for the caution against placing undue reliance on unreported precedents
Cheng William v Allister Lim & Thrumurgan and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2015] 3 SLR 201SingaporeCited for the definition of contributory negligence
Froom v ButcherN/AYes[1976] QB 286N/ACited for the definition of contributory negligence
Parno v SC Marine Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 377SingaporeCited for the definition of contributory negligence
Astley v Austrust LtdN/AYes(1999) 197 CLR 1AustraliaCited for the definition of contributory negligence
PlanAssure PAC v Gaelic Inns Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 513SingaporeCited for the definition of contributory negligence
Davies v MannN/AYes(1842) 10 M & W 546N/ACited as an example of the common law rule that contributory negligence operated as a complete defence against a claim in damages
Tay Kim Kuan v PPCourt of AppealYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 876SingaporeCited for the caution against relying on unreported decisions indiscriminately in determining the appropriate sentence for the particular case before the court
PP v Siew Boon LoongCourt of AppealYes[2005] 1 SLR(R) 611SingaporeCited for the caution against relying on unreported decisions indiscriminately in determining the appropriate sentence for the particular case before the court
Owens v BrimmellN/AYes[1977] 1 QB 859N/ACited for the principle that the court must have regard to the entirety of the circumstances
Smith v FinchN/AYes[2009] EWHC 53 (QB)England and WalesCited for the principle that the touchstone is whether the claimant acted reasonably, with the amount of self-care that a normal person would have exercised in the circumstances of a given case
A C Billings & Sons Ltd v RidenHouse of LordsYes[1958] 1 AC 240United KingdomCited for the principle that the touchstone is whether the claimant acted reasonably, with the amount of self-care that a normal person would have exercised in the circumstances of a given case
Lewis v DenyeN/AYes[1939] 1 KB 540N/ACited for the principle that the touchstone is whether the claimant acted reasonably, with the amount of self-care that a normal person would have exercised in the circumstances of a given case

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Contributory Negligence and Personal Injuries Act (Cap 54, 2002 Rev Ed) s 3(1)Singapore
Road Traffic (Pedestrian Crossing) Rules (Cap 276, R 24, 1990 Rev Ed) rr 4, 6, 7Singapore
Highway Code (Cap 276, R 11, S8/75) r 20Singapore
Highway Code (Cap 276, R 11, S8/75) r 22Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Contributory negligence
  • Pedestrian crossing
  • Traffic lights
  • Duty of care
  • Apportionment of damages
  • Highway Code
  • Dual-carriageway
  • Signalised crossing
  • Reasonable care
  • Foreseeability

15.2 Keywords

  • contributory negligence
  • pedestrian crossing
  • traffic lights
  • duty of care
  • Singapore
  • appeal
  • negligence
  • motor accident

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contributory negligence95
Negligence90
Torts85
Personal Injury80
Road Traffic Accident Law80
Traffic Accident Law75
Automobile Accidents75
Road Traffic Law75
Damages70
Road Traffic Act70
Motor accident70
Assessment of Damages65
Causation60
Vicarious liability30
Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act30
Motor Vehicle Insurance30

16. Subjects

  • Tort Law
  • Negligence Law
  • Civil Law
  • Traffic Law