Sun Delong v Teo Poh Soon: Assessment of Damages for Personal Injuries from Traffic Accident

In the High Court of Singapore, Sun Delong sued Teo Poh Soon and Simple Craft Interior Trading for damages resulting from a traffic accident on 5 December 2012. Sun, a cyclist, sustained multiple injuries when he was hit by a lorry driven by Teo. Interlocutory judgment was entered for Sun on 10 November 2014, with liability at 50 per cent against the defendants. The court assessed the quantum of damages due to Sun, awarding a total of S$186,338.63, with the plaintiff entitled to 50 per cent of this amount.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Assessment of damages for personal injuries sustained by Sun Delong, a cyclist hit by a lorry driven by Teo Poh Soon. The court determined the quantum of damages due to Sun.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Sun DelongPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffPartial
Teo Poh SoonDefendantIndividualJudgment against DefendantLost
Simple Craft Interior TradingDefendantCorporationJudgment against DefendantLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Daljit Singh SidhuKSCGP Juris LLP
N K RajarhStraits Law Practice LLC

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff was knocked down by a lorry while cycling.
  2. Plaintiff suffered multiple injuries to his head, abdomen, lungs, pelvis, and shoulders.
  3. Interlocutory judgment was entered for the plaintiff with liability at 50 percent against the defendants.
  4. Plaintiff underwent a decompressive craniectomy and cranioplasty operation.
  5. Plaintiff claimed to suffer from frequent headaches, giddiness, vertigo, difficulty in sleeping, and irritability.
  6. Plaintiff claimed his cognitive abilities have been affected.
  7. Plaintiff returned to China and is helping his family run a provision shop.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Sun Delong v Teo Poh Soon and another, Suit No 122 of 2014, [2016] SGHC 129
  2. Sun Delong v Teo Poh Soon and another, Suit No 112 of 2016, [2016] SGHC 129

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff knocked down by lorry
Plaintiff underwent decompressive craniectomy and evacuation of blood clot
Plaintiff underwent cranioplasty operation
Plaintiff returned to China
Interlocutory judgment entered for Plaintiff
Trial began
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Quantum of Damages for Personal Injuries
    • Outcome: The court determined the quantum of damages for various categories of injuries and losses, including head injuries, pelvic/lower limb injuries, abdominal injuries, lung injuries, lacerations and abrasions, special damages, and future loss.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Assessment of damages for head injuries
      • Assessment of damages for pelvic/lower limb injuries
      • Assessment of damages for abdominal injuries
      • Assessment of damages for lung injuries
      • Assessment of damages for lacerations and abrasions
      • Assessment of special damages
      • Assessment of future loss
  2. Contributory Negligence
    • Outcome: The plaintiff was found to be 50% liable for his injuries due to contributory negligence, reducing the total award by half.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Teo Ai Ling v Koh Chai KwangHigh CourtYes[2010] 2 SLR 1037SingaporeCited to determine the appropriate award for head injuries, but distinguished due to the severity of injuries.
Eng Ah Wah v Cheng Kiem SangDistrict CourtYes[2003] SGDC 263SingaporeCited by the defendant to argue for a lower award for head injuries, but the court found it not persuasive due to the difference in the severity of injuries.
Ang Siam Hua v Teo Cheng HoeHigh CourtYes[2004] SGHC 147SingaporeCited as a more appropriate reference for head injuries, but distinguished due to the plaintiff in that case suffering an episode of post-traumatic epilepsy.
Ravi Raj v Wang Yuen ChowHigh CourtYes[1997] SGHC 294SingaporeCited by the plaintiff to justify the claim for pelvic/lower limb injuries, but distinguished due to the severity of injuries.
Khek Ching Ching v SBS Transit LtdDistrict CourtYes[2010] SGDC 220SingaporeCited by the plaintiff to justify the claim for shoulder injuries, but distinguished due to the plaintiff in that case experiencing tenderness on her chest, wrists, and right ankle.
Wu Liang Zhu v Chan Yue MingHigh CourtYesWu Liang Zhu v Chan Yue Ming [2002] SGHC 91SingaporeCited by the defendant to argue for a lower award for abdominal injuries.
He Xu v Yap Tain ChorDistrict CourtYesHe Xu v Yap Tain Chor (DC Suit No 2050 of 2000)SingaporeCited by the plaintiff to justify the claim for abdominal injuries, but distinguished because the plaintiff in that case suffered from transient thrombocytopenia post-operatively.
Thagavel Rajendran v Econ Piling Pte LtdDistrict CourtYesThagavel Rajendran v Econ Piling Pte Ltd (DC Suit No 51403 of 1998)SingaporeCited by the plaintiff to justify the claim for lung injuries, but distinguished because the plaintiff in that case suffered haemothorax that required intercostal drainage and also needed mechanical ventilator support.
Tew Chee Yong v Yap Eng KiatDistrict CourtYesTew Chee Yong v Yap Eng Kiat (DC Suit No 3977 of 1999)SingaporeCited by the defendant to argue for a lower award for lung injuries; the plaintiff in that case suffered from lung contusion with pneumothorax.
Mohamed Azis bin Mohamed Zacharia @ Abdul Aza bin Zakaria v Athim bin DahriDistrict CourtYesMohamed Azis bin Mohamed Zacharia @ Abdul Aza bin Zakaria v Athim bin Dahri (DC Suit No. 6012 of 1998)SingaporeCited by the plaintiff to justify the claim for lacerations and scars, but the court found the award in that case for multiple skin abrasions may be too high.
Donnelly v JoyceQueen's BenchYes[1974] QB 454England and WalesCited by the plaintiff to support the claim for hospital/medical expenses and nursing home charges paid by the employer. The court discussed the principles in Donnelly but qualified its application.
Ang Eng Lee v Lim Lye SoonCourt of AppealYes[1985–1986] SLR(R) 931SingaporeCited by the plaintiff to support the claim for hospital/medical expenses and nursing home charges paid by the employer. The court adopted the reasoning in Donnelly.
Hunt v SeversHouse of LordsYes[1994] 2 AC 350United KingdomCited to discuss the principles of claiming for needs provided by a third party, and the court noted that Donnelly was overruled to the extent that when the provider for the needs of the injured plaintiff was the tortfeasor defendant himself, the plaintiff cannot require that tortfeasor to pay damages in respect of what he had already provided.
Wattson v Port of London AuthorityUnknownYes[1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 95England and WalesCited as a case considered by the Court of Appeal in Donnelly, where the tortfeasor(s) remained liable to the plaintiff even if the plaintiff’s needs had already been provided for with no obligation on his part to repay the provider, and the provider was a family member or close relative of the plaintiff.
Lim Hin Hock v Ong Jin ChoonUnknownYes[1991] 1 SLR(R) 381SingaporeCited to support the principle that when the employer of an injured plaintiff is under no legal obligation to pay the plaintiff his salary during his period of disability, but does so as a loan to the plaintiff for him to meet his expenses, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the same amount from the tortfeasor(s).
Au Yeong Wing Loong v Chew Hai BanUnknownYes[1993] 2 SLR(R) 290SingaporeCited to support the principle that where a plaintiff receives his salary from his employer and is not obliged to return them, he cannot claim the same amount from the tortfeasor(s) otherwise that would amount to double recovery.
Poh Huat Heng Corp Pte Ltd v Hafizul Islam Kofil UddinCourt of AppealYes[2012] 3 SLR 1003SingaporeCited to determine the appropriate multiplier for future medical expenses.
Chai Kang Wei Samuel v Shaw Linda GillianCourt of AppealYes[2010] 3 SLR 587SingaporeCited to support the principle that loss of future earnings must be “real assessable loss proved by evidence”.
Fairley v John Thompson (Design and Contracting Division) LtdUnknownYesFairley v John Thompson (Design and Contracting Division) Ltd [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 40England and WalesCited to support the principle that loss of future earnings must be “real assessable loss proved by evidence”.
Wang Jianbin v Hong De Development Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 242SingaporeCited to support the principle that if a plaintiff has not proven on a balance of probabilities that as a result of the accident he suffers from a disability that renders him incapable of performing the same job he did, or if he does not provide sufficient evidence for calculating his loss in future wages, then his claim must be dismissed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Work Passes) Regulations 2012 (Cap 91A S 569/2012)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Personal Injuries
  • Assessment of Damages
  • Traumatic Brain Injury
  • Decompressive Craniectomy
  • Cranioplasty
  • Contributory Negligence
  • Loss of Earnings
  • Loss of Earning Capacity
  • Special Damages
  • General Damages

15.2 Keywords

  • personal injury
  • traffic accident
  • damages
  • negligence
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Personal Injury95
Damages90
Assessment of Damages85
Civil Procedure60
Evidence Law50
Negligence40

16. Subjects

  • Tort
  • Personal Injury
  • Damages