CASES ON MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
For further understanding on the liability of parties in respect of motor vehicle accidents, I would like to discuss on three different motor accident cases in Malaysia. For each cases, three elements will be identify, i.e. fact of the case, court held and reason.
1st case: Peter A/L Selvaraj & Anor V Cheng Bee Teik & Ors [2002] 4 MLJ 167
Fact of the case: This negligent case relating to road accident involves the collision between two motorcycles and a motorvan. This is an appeal case from Sessions Court regarding apportionment of liability for both parties. The first plaintiff was the rider of motorcycle and the second plaintiff was the grandmother and dependant of the deceased pillion rider of the motorcycle. The third plaintiff was the father and dependant of the deceased rider of motorcycle. The first and second defendants respectively were the driver and owner of motorvan. On 23 December 1998 at about 11.45pm, the first plaintiff with his pillion and 2nd plaintiff were riding their respective motorcycles along Jalan Paya Terubong proceeding from the direction of Ayer Itam towards the direction of Relau. The first defendant was then proceeding from the opposite direction. The plaintiffs' pleaded case was that the first defendant overtook a vehicle ahead of him and encroached into the plaintiffs' path and collided into both the motorcycles. It was the pleaded case of the defence that the collision occurred as a result of both the motorcyclists encroaching into the first defendant's path from the opposite direction whilst racing with each other and thereby crossing over a double line in the centre of the road. The learned sessions court judge found the first defendant totally liable for the ac...
... middle of paper ...
...f way. The evidence established that the first plaintiff could not avoid the collision when the defendant swerved to his right across the road, in the path of the motorcycle driven by the first plaintiff, to enter the junction. The trial judge had misdirected himself on the facts. The trial judge had erred in adjudging that the first plaintiff was 30% liable to the second plaintiff. A pillion rider is entitled to recover the total amount of damages against a tortfeasor that. The pillion is entitled to the total amount of damages notwithstanding the finding that the rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the car are equally blameworthy. In this case, the second plaintiff was an ‘innocent passenger’ and was entitled to damages on a 100% basis. He could not, as a pillion rider, be held to be vicariously liable for the contributory negligence of the first plaintiff
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
"Supreme Court of New South Wales." R v Maglovski (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 16 (4 February 2013). http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2013/16.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(r%20and%20maglovski%20) (accessed October 12, 2013).
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 108 S. Ct. 592, 98 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1988).
MacEwing, J. M. (October 25, 2005). Making Sense of the Recent Case Law. Jenkins Marzban Logan
The appellant, Jesse Mamo, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by the respondent, Steven Surace. Whilst the respondent looked down to adjust the radio, a cow wandered on to the road, colliding with the vehicle . The appellant alleged that the respondent failed to use high beam or maintain a proper lookout. The respondent denied liability and pleaded contributory negligence. At trial, the Judge held that breach of duty of care had not transpired, as it was an unforeseeable risk causing an unavoidable accident, as the cow appeared too close to react. The Judge argued that the respondent acted appropriately toward ‘foreseeable risks”, which the cow was not part of.
Melvin, Justice. "In The Supreme Court Of British Columbia." Issues In Law & Medicine 9.3 (1993): 309. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.
“Case Synopsis by Dan Stidham” in “Case Introduction” in “Case Info”. Dan Stidham. Los Angeles, CA. 2/10/08. .
On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law)
United States v. Sell, 343 F.3d 950, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 26859 (8th Cir., Sept. 2, 2003)
Norris, J. A., Garinger, G., & Kurtz, N. C. (1979). Selected recent court decisions. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 5(4), 1-2.
In our given scenario we are asked to discuss legal principles influencing the likelihood of any successful action against Steve in the grounds of negligence. Steve’s negligent driving caused a series of events that caused losses to the other people presented in the scenario and they take actions against Steve in the grounds of negligence. At first we must understand what negligence is. The tort of negligence provides the potenti...
The Oyez Project, Morse v. Frederick , 551 U.S. ___ (2007) available at: ( HYPERLINK "http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_278" http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_278 ) (last visited Friday, November 25, 2010).
part of the Doctrine Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd V Heller and. Partners Ltd (1964), Rondel V Worsley (1969).
Gallagher and Zeigler 1990 [18] [1991] 1 All ER 929 [19] Farrar [20] [1996] 2 All ER 433 [21] [1998] 1 All ER 929 [22] [1998] BCLC 447 [23] [1985] BCLC 333 at p337. [24] p536. [25] [1993] BCLC 480 [26] [1998] 1 WLR 830 [27] Cf Ord v Belhaven. [28] [1998] AC 854 [29] Cf S.24 Companies Act 1985 [30] cf.
195 F.3d 645 (11th Cir. 1999), and United States v. Pearl, 89 F.Supp.2d 1237 (D.Utah 2000).