- We conducted an interview with the driver of the insured vehicle, Mr Yeo En Fei Walter on 16 January 2016. Mr Walter confirmed that the accident happened on 28 December 2015 around 2145hrs. He was able to relate the circumstances of the accident to the best of his recollection.
- According to Mr Walter, the accident occurred when he was alone on his way to 81 Macpherson Lane for a haircut appointment. It was drizzling and the road surface was wet at the time of the accident.
- After filtering left towards PIE (Changi Airport), Mr Walter was travelling down the ramp at approximately 50km/h. Whilst negotiating the left bend downslope stretch of the ramp, he stepped on the brakes to reduce the speed of the insured vehicle but it skidded,
…show more content…
- Our investigations with the local authorities revealed that Mr Walter does not have any outstanding traffic offence(s) currently. During our interview, he had taken photographs of the insured vehicle while waiting for the tow truck to tow it away. These photographs were subsequently forwarded to us.
- From these photographs, we noticed that the damages sustained on the vehicle were mostly at the front and right portion as a result of the collision. The general surroundings observed in these photographs seem to conform to the circumstances of the accident and the information that were narrated to us by Mr Walter. The road surface was also observed to be wet, corresponding to the wet weather condition at the material time of accident.
- We also obtained the towing receipt from Mova Automotive which shows the insured vehicle was hoist and check for damages due to accident. See photo 6 – 9 below which were provided by Mr Walter.
Photo 6 shows the insured vehicle at the accident scene with its front bumper missing. It stopped on the left side of the verge with its front portion facing the direction of traffic
…show more content…
- Mr Walter confirmed that from the maintenance until the date of accident, both he and his mum did not encounter any unusual behaviour with the insured vehicle.
- Basing on the available evidence, we are of the view that the damages to the insured vehicle SKE 6090T are consistent to the circumstances of the accident as reported by the driver of insured vehicle SKE 6090T.
- The physical inspection carried out to the insured vehicle SKE 6090T had also revealed that its 4 tyres were in serviceable condition with remaining thread depth of approximately 5 mm each. Static tests to its steering system could not be conducted due to the damages to the insured vehicle’s undercarriage while the braking system had revealed no abnormality. There was no fluid leak observed from the insured vehicle SKE 6090T during this physical inspection.
- There was no evidence found to suggest that possible drink driving had existed at the material time of accident considering that Mr Walter was able to take clear photographs of the insured vehicle at different
As pointed out by Meagher JA in Marien v Gardiner it is not possible that the driver could foresee and react to any event that could take place within the area surrounding the vehicle. Therefore, the driver could not have breached his duty of care in any circumstance that an object by chance is to collide with a vehicle on the road.
On the morning of the 17th of May 2005, Nola Walker was involved in a two vehicle motor accident. She had just dropped her son off at his new job, when she ignored a give way sign at an intersection. When the ambulance arrived the officers, Nucifora and Blake, recall Walker being “able to converse” and “orientated”. Blake conducted multiple assessments and did her vital signs twice. The results deemed Walker to be within normal ranges, with the only noticeable trauma involving superficial skin injuries on the left hand, an abrasion over the right clavicle which was assumed to be a seatbelt injury. Ms Walker denied she was ever in pain. Nucifora mentioned on several occasions that it would be best to take Walker to the hospital to be further
After sifting through the evidence, the culprit of the accident can be determined. The accident occurred on 7:45 AM on the date of September 11, 2001. At at stoplight, four cars were stopped, but a car accident occurred. Based on prior evidence from other cases, the back car is usually the culprit. Dr. Otto Mobile’s interview shows that he was not in a rush, going to lecturing a class, and he was behind a dancing woman, presumably dancing to music. Also, Ken Notstop was not in a rush as well and he was part of a tree business. Following Ken, Kelly Sion was interviewed, showing that she had a song stuck in her head. Due to the fact she wanted to exercise before she was supposed to open the gym, she was in a rush.. Anita Newcar was in a rush due to the fact that she was already late to work, and she was behind a car with trees and a nest on the back. Due to the fact that Kelly had a song stuck in her head, she could’ve been the woman dancing in a car that Dr. Otto Mobile mentioned, showing that she was in front of Otto. Because Ken was the only person
On December 20, 2011 at approximately 12:17 p.m., Elina Burdin was driving her motor vehicle South on Grove Street overpass in Bridgewater, NJ. At this time, Ms. Burdin was going around a u-turn roundabout when she gradually slowed her vehicle down due to traffic in front of her. While slowing down almost to a stop Ms. Burdin’s vehicle was struck from behind by a motor vehicle owned and operated by defendant William M. Koszkulics at a high rate of speed. The force of this impact knocked Ms. Burdin’s vehicle forward jarring her body forwards and back.
Retana advised that earlier that night as he was traveling westbound in the outside lane of the 2100 block of West Wadley an SUV (TXLP-BXH2519) exiting the private drive located near Sedonas Grill hit the Right Front Quarter of his silver Chevrolet Cruise(TXLP-703684G). Retana then advised that the vehicle tried to leave the scene and that he then followed him. Retana was unable to produce an accurate direction of travel. Retana advised Officer Jimenez that as he was following the vehicle in an attempt to get the driver to stop, the driver of the vehicle then intentionally and knowingly swerved his vehicle towards his. As a result Retana stated that his vehicle was hit for a second time.
One moment the car in perfect condition, without so much as a scratch on its curving surface the next moment impact, sheer impact. Total destruction. In...
The ARDC argued that an accident in these conditions was not foreseeable. This was dismissed by the court, which held that accidents at a car racing event it is common for these things to occur, and as such held a duty of care to Metcalf. The court ruled in favour of
Paramedics on scene took both passengers of the vehicle to a local hospital for treatment for possible rib fractures, concussion and disorientation. The driver’s head struck the side window, causing a cut. There were several witnesses to this event and three of them made statements to the military police. Both passengers of the vehicle have currently filed suit against the company for compensatory damages. Compensatory damages are intended to provide relief to the affected individuals.
“In the front seat was Gregg, driving, Sarah, in the middle, and Robyn, on the passenger side. In the rear seat was Jeff, behind the driver, Haley, in the middle, and Rachel, on the passenger side. EVERYONE was wearing their SEAT BELTS, as is our family habit. EVERYONE walked away from this accident with only bruises. The only blood was Robyn had small nicks from glass in a couple of places on her right arm and right leg.
From our research and findings regarding the crash it can be deduced that the crash was primarily caused by a fracture in the rail track that occurred when
Portman, M., et al. “Profile of a Drunk Driver and Risk Factors of Drunk Driving.Finding in Roadside Testing in the Province of Uusimaa in Finland 1990-2008.” Forensic Science International (Online) 231.1 (2013): 20-7. ProQuest. Web. 26 Nov. 2013
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...
“Along with the help of the (Specialized Collision Reconstruction Team) we determined the driver of the motorcycle, Mr. Wooten, was not at fault in this accident,” he said. “SCRT was involved in the first investigation but to a lesser degree because it was a non-fatal crash.” According to initial reports, multiple witnesses saw three men, including Marlow, the driver of the truck, abandon the scene, leaving Wooten on the side of the road. Witnesses said the men left in a different green truck. Before first responders arrived, Wooten was assisted by nearby residents, one of whom was a retired nurse.
The majority of driving offences are contained in the Road Traffic Act 1988. This essay will mostly examine causing death by unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured driving (s3ZB) and causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving. (s2B) There is often a distinction between constructive and non constructive strict liability offences. These offences are considered to be constructive strict liability since the prosecution does not need prove there was any fault in relation to causing the death.
Knowing how to drive a car myself, I can’t expect an accident to occur. It just happens without your knowledge and sometimes without your fault too. It’s better to take precautions just in case such a thing happens. This will surely help you financially for the repairs of the vehicle.