Judgment - The High Court of Sabah & Sarawak
Judgment - The High Court of Sabah & Sarawak
Judgment - The High Court of Sabah & Sarawak
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
5<br />
10<br />
15<br />
20<br />
25<br />
Brief Facts<br />
2<br />
[KCH-12B-7-2011]<br />
<strong>The</strong> accident occurred along Jalan Datuk Mohd Musa on 10 th September<br />
2006. <strong>The</strong> 2 nd plaintiff was the pillion rider. <strong>The</strong> rider <strong>of</strong> the motorcycle is<br />
the son <strong>of</strong> the 1 st plaintiff. <strong>The</strong> motorcycle was involved in head-on collision<br />
with a car that came from the opposite side <strong>of</strong> the road. <strong>The</strong> rider <strong>of</strong> the<br />
motorcycle died on the spot. <strong>The</strong> 1 st plaintiff has brought this action as the<br />
administrator <strong>of</strong> the estate <strong>of</strong> the deceased. <strong>The</strong> 2 nd plaintiff survived the<br />
accident although he sustained serious injuries. <strong>The</strong> 1 st defendant is a Lance<br />
Corporal who was attached to the Kota Samarahan Police Station. He was<br />
driving alone after attending a police “Jasamu Di Kenang” function in Kota<br />
Samarahan. <strong>The</strong> car was registered in the name <strong>of</strong> his wife who is also a<br />
police personnel. <strong>The</strong> evidence <strong>of</strong> the 2 nd plaintiff is that the car encroached<br />
into the path <strong>of</strong> the motorcycle on their side <strong>of</strong> the road. <strong>The</strong> 1 st defendant on<br />
the other hand told the court that the motorcycle encroached into his path.<br />
<strong>The</strong> learned Sessions <strong>Court</strong> Judge found the 1 st defendant liable for causing<br />
the accident for the following reasons. She found the 1 st defendant’s<br />
testimony to be inconsistent. <strong>The</strong> 1 st defendant lodged the police report the<br />
following morning. He did not mention that the motorcycle encroached into<br />
his path. <strong>The</strong> 1 st defendant only said that he collided with a motorcycle that<br />
travelled from the opposite direction. <strong>The</strong> investigating <strong>of</strong>ficer <strong>of</strong> the case,<br />
P.W. 1, took numerous photographs <strong>of</strong> the scene. However, he could not<br />
remember taking photographs <strong>of</strong> the debris at the scene. <strong>The</strong> Sessions <strong>Court</strong><br />
Judge also noted that from the serial numbers <strong>of</strong> the negatives, one<br />
photograph, i.e. Negative 17 was missing when it was sent for processing.<br />
From the answers <strong>of</strong> the investigating <strong>of</strong>ficer that he “could not recall” and<br />
“was not sure” about the position <strong>of</strong> the debris, she surmised that there was