Danny Raj v Ang Zhiqiang: Negligence and Public Nuisance Claim for Motorcycle Collision on SLE
In Suit No 589 of 2020, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard a case between Plaintiff Danny Raj a/l Muniappan and Defendant Ang Zhiqiang concerning a motorcycle collision with the defendant's stalled car on the Seletar Expressway (SLE). The plaintiff brought claims of negligence and public nuisance against the defendant, seeking compensation for personal injuries. Justice Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding that the evidence did not support either claim and that the accident was caused by the plaintiff's own negligence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Action dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Oral Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Plaintiff's negligence and public nuisance claims dismissed after a motorcycle collision with defendant's stalled car on the SLE highway.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Danny Raj a/l Muniappan | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | Ramasamy s/o Karuppan Chettiar |
| Ang Zhiqiang | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Devendarajah Vivekananda, Sunita Carmel Netto, Lee Yen Yin |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ramasamy s/o Karuppan Chettiar | Central Chambers Law Corporation |
| Devendarajah Vivekananda | ComLaw LLC |
| Sunita Carmel Netto | ComLaw LLC |
| Lee Yen Yin | ComLaw LLC |
4. Facts
- The defendant's car stalled in the rightmost lane of the Seletar Expressway (SLE) due to a loss of power.
- The defendant switched on the car's hazard lights and opened the boot to retrieve a breakdown signage.
- The plaintiff's motorcycle collided with the rear of the defendant's stalled car.
- An in-car camera captured the plaintiff overtaking another vehicle from the right before the collision.
- The plaintiff admitted to not seeing the defendant's car until after overtaking the other vehicle.
- The plaintiff did not brake or slow down before colliding with the defendant's car.
- The defendant's car was scrapped a few months after the accident.
5. Formal Citations
- Danny Raj a/l Muniappan v Ang Zhiqiang, Suit No 589 of 2020, [2022] SGHC 31
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Collision between plaintiff's motorcycle and defendant's car on SLE. | |
| Suit No 589 of 2020 filed. | |
| Amendment made to the Statement of Claim to delete reference to 'private' nuisance. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial concluded. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant breached their duty of care or that any breach caused the accident. The court also found that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of duty of care
- Causation
- Failure to maintain vehicle
- Res ipsa loquitur
- Related Cases:
- [1975] 2 MLJ 3
- [2006] 3 SLR(R) 459
- [1993] 4 All ER 299
- [2009] EWCA Civ 1404
- [1954] 2 QB 182
- [1950] 1 All ER 392
- Public Nuisance
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant's stalled car did not constitute an actionable public nuisance and that the plaintiff failed to prove causation.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Obstruction of highway
- Danger to road users
- Causation
- Related Cases:
- [1972] 1 QB 496
- [2006] 3 SLR(R) 459
8. Remedies Sought
- Compensation for personal injuries
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Public Nuisance
10. Practice Areas
- Personal Injury
- Motor Vehicle Accidents
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chop Seng Heng v Thevannasan & ors | N/A | Yes | [1975] 2 MLJ 3 | N/A | Cited in the context of the negligence claim to distinguish from cases where vehicles were stationary due to deliberate parking decisions. |
| Yang Xi Na v Lim Chong Hong and another (Ong Ah Seng, third party) | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 459 | Singapore | Cited in the context of the negligence claim to distinguish from cases where vehicles were stationary due to deliberate parking decisions and in relation to the claim of public nuisance. |
| Wright v Lodge & another | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 4 All ER 299 | England and Wales | Cited to discuss causation and novus actus interveniens in the context of a broken-down vehicle on a carriageway. |
| Spencer v Wincanton Holdings Ltd (Wincanton Logistics Ltd) | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] EWCA Civ 1404 | England and Wales | Cited to discuss the concept of novus actus interveniens and the degree of unreasonable conduct required. |
| Dymond v Pearce | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1972] 1 QB 496 | England and Wales | Cited extensively in relation to the public nuisance claim, particularly regarding obstruction and causation. |
| Southport Corporation v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd & another | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1954] 2 QB 182 | England and Wales | Cited in relation to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, but found not to assist the plaintiff's case. |
| Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd v Southport Corporation | House of Lords | Yes | [1955] AC 218 | England and Wales | Cited as the appeal to Southport Corporation v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd & another. The decision by the House of Lords did not touch on the observations of the majority of the Court of Appeal regarding the manner in which the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should be applied: namely, that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has no application where the cause of the accident is known. |
| Barkway v South Wales Transport Co Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1950] 1 All ER 392 | England and Wales | Cited to support the principle that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has no application where the cause of the accident is known. |
| Goh Pin Yi Cindy v Mahmod Fadzuli bin Mahnor & another | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 94 | Singapore | Cited Dymond |
| Trevett v Lee | N/A | Yes | [1955] 1 WLR 113 | N/A | Cited for the law regarding obstructions to highways. |
| Maitland v Raisbeck & R.T. & J. Hewitt Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1944] KB 689 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a nuisance would obviously be created if the obstruction was allowed to continue for an unreasonable time or in unreasonable circumstances. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Seletar Expressway
- Stalled vehicle
- Hazard lights
- Overtaking
- Res ipsa loquitur
- Novus actus interveniens
- Causation
- Duty of care
- Breach of duty
- Public nuisance
- Obstruction of highway
15.2 Keywords
- negligence
- public nuisance
- motorcycle accident
- car collision
- Seletar Expressway
- Singapore
- High Court
- personal injury
16. Subjects
- Tort Law
- Negligence Law
- Nuisance Law
- Motor Vehicle Accidents
17. Areas of Law
- Tort
- Negligence
- Public Nuisance