CXN v CXO: Negligence and Apportionment of Liability in Car Collision Case

In the case of CXN (a minor suing by her father and litigation representative) v CXO and Chui Jin Hua Vincent, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard a negligence claim regarding a car collision on 2020-10-23. The plaintiff, CXN, sought damages for severe injuries sustained when the van she was in, driven by the first defendant, CXO, collided with a car driven by the second defendant, Chui Jin Hua Vincent. The court found both defendants negligent and apportioned liability, with the first defendant bearing 65% and the second defendant 35% of the responsibility for the plaintiff's injuries. Interlocutory judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants at 100% with damages to be assessed and interest reserved.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Interlocutory judgment is granted in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants at 100% with damages to be assessed and interest reserved.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court case involving a car collision. The court determined liability apportionment between the defendants for the plaintiff's injuries.

1.7 Decision Date

12 December 2022

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
CXN	Plaintiff	Individual	Interlocutory judgment granted	Won	Ng Kwong Loong of Leagle Sense LLC
CXO	Defendant	Individual	Liability apportioned	Lost	Fernandez Christopher of Tan Kok Quan Partnership Low Huai Pin of Tan Kok Quan Partnership Pillai Remesha Chandran of Jacob Mansur & Pillai
Chui Jin Hua Vincent	Defendant	Individual	Liability apportioned	Lost	Yeo Kim Hai Patrick of Legal Solutions LLC Lim Hui Ying of Legal Solutions LLC Ooi Jingyu of Legal Solutions LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Teh Hwee Hwee	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Ng Kwong Loong	Leagle Sense LLC
Fernandez Christopher	Tan Kok Quan Partnership
Low Huai Pin	Tan Kok Quan Partnership
Pillai Remesha Chandran	Jacob Mansur & Pillai
Yeo Kim Hai Patrick	Legal Solutions LLC
Lim Hui Ying	Legal Solutions LLC
Ooi Jingyu	Legal Solutions LLC

4. Facts

The first defendant was driving the plaintiff and other passengers in a panel van.
The plaintiff was in the rear cargo compartment, which had neither seats nor seat belts.
The first defendant was executing an authorized U-turn when the collision occurred.
The second defendant was driving at an excessive speed of 124km/h in a 70km/h zone.
The plaintiff and another passenger were ejected from the van upon collision.
The first defendant pleaded guilty to driving without reasonable consideration.
The second defendant pleaded guilty to speeding.

5. Formal Citations

CXN (a minor suing by her father and litigation representative) v CXO and another, Suit No 1000 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 311

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2020-10-23	Collision between the first defendant’s van and the second defendant’s car
2022-05-12	AEIC of the plaintiff’s father, [L], dated
2022-04-21	AEIC of [K] dated
2022-04-21	AEIC of [J] dated
2022-08-05	Supplementary AEIC of [L] dated
2022-07-28	AEIC of the First Defendant dated
2022-06-09	AEIC of the Second Defendant dated
2022-08-01	First defendant disqualified from holding or obtaining all classes of driving licences for a period of 12 months with effect from
2022-09-19	Trial began
2022-09-23	Trial
2022-11-18	Trial
2022-10-28	Plaintiff’s Closing Submissions dated
2022-10-28	First Defendant’s Closing Submissions dated
2022-10-28	Second Defendant’s Closing Submissions dated
2022-11-11	First Defendant’s Reply Submissions dated
2022-12-13	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court found both defendants breached their duty of care to the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to keep a proper look-out
  - Failure to give way to oncoming traffic
  - Driving at excessive speed
  - Failure to ensure passenger safety
- Related Cases:
  - [2015] SGHC 124
  - [2005] 2 SLR(R) 455
  - [2016] 2 SLR 944
  - [2021] SGHC 44
  - [2007] 2 SLR(R) 211
  - [2004] 1 SLR(R) 628
  - [2021] 2 SLR 1267
  - [2015] 3 SLR 201
Apportionment of Liability
- Outcome: The court apportioned liability at 65% to the first defendant and 35% to the second defendant.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2015] 3 SLR 201

8. Remedies Sought

Damages for personal injuries

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence

10. Practice Areas

Personal Injury
Motor Vehicle Accidents
Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Chai Yew Cian v Yeoh Yeow Yee and others	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 124	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a turning vehicle is prima facie more likely to be the primary cause of an accident when there is a collision between a turning vehicle and an oncoming straight-moving vehicle.
Ong Bee Nah v Won Siew Wan (Yong Tian Choy, third party)	N/A	Yes	[2005] 2 SLR(R) 455	Singapore	Cited regarding the evidentiary value of a conviction upon a plea of guilty.
Asnah bte Ab Rahman v Li Jianlin	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 2 SLR 944	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a right of way is not unfettered and does not absolve a road user of the need to exercise due care.
Ting Jun Heng v Yap Kok Hua and another	High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 44	Singapore	Cited for the principle that having the right of way does not absolve a road user of the need to exercise due care.
SBS Transit Ltd v Stafford Rosemary Anne Jane (administratrix of the estate of Anthony John Stafford, deceased)	N/A	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 211	Singapore	Cited for the principle that road users with traffic lights in their favour must still keep a proper look-out and maintain a speed that enables them to take appropriate actions as and when necessary.
Cheong Ghim Fah and another v Murugian s/o Rangasamy	N/A	Yes	[2004] 1 SLR(R) 628	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a finding of speeding is a strong indication of driving in a dangerous or negligent manner.
Ng Li Ning v Ting Jun Heng and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 2 SLR 1267	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a high speed is not a speed at which the driver could take reactive action if some other turning vehicle also started to cross its path.
Cheng William v Allister Lim & Thrumurgan and another and another appeal	N/A	Yes	[2015] 3 SLR 201	Singapore	Cited for the principle that regard must be had to the extent of the first defendant’s and the second defendant’s individual responsibility for the plaintiff’s injuries so as to arrive at a just and equitable apportionment.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Road Traffic Rules (Cap 276, R 20, 1999 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 65(1)(b)	Singapore
Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 65(4)(a)	Singapore
Road Traffic Act (Cap 276) s 63(4)	Singapore
Road Traffic Act (Cap 276) s 131(2)(a)	Singapore
Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Civil Law Act 1909 (2020 Rev Ed) s 16(1)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Negligence
Duty of care
Apportionment of liability
U-turn
Speeding
Collision
Personal injuries
Reasonable consideration
Excessive speed
Causation

15.2 Keywords

Car accident
Negligence
Apportionment
Singapore
Traffic law
Personal injury

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Negligence	95
Apportionment of Liability	85
Automobile Accidents	80
Personal Injury	75
Road Traffic Act	70
Causation	60
Contributory negligence	30
Civil Procedure	30
Measure of Damages	20
Vicarious liability	15

16. Subjects

Tort Law
Motor Vehicle Accidents
Negligence
Civil Litigation