AKMAL RAFI BIN ANIFAH (No. K/P: 850530-08-5883) 1. ) MOHD SHAFFIE BIN MOHAMED YUSOF (No. K/P: 740808-08-5435) 2. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

AKMAL RAFI BIN ANIFAH (No. K/P: 850530-08-5883) 1. ) MOHD SHAFFIE BIN MOHAMED YUSOF (No. K/P: 740808-08-5435) 2. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

On the balance of probabilities the defendant's version was more probable: the motorjip had signalled and stopped to turn and the plaintiff overtook on the right at speed, failed to keep a proper lookout and a safe distance, and therefore the plaintiff was negligent; accordingly liability was attributed to the plaintiff and the court awarded or assessed damages and costs consistent with findings and evidence.

Citation
AA-A73KJ-39-01/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Plaintif: AKMAL RAFI BIN ANIFAH; Defendan Pertama: MOHD SHAFFIE BIN MOHAMED YUSOF; Defendan Kedua: KERAJAAN MALAYSIA
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 November 2020
Case Number
AA-A73KJ-39-01/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Accident / Judgment (liability and Quantum)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims allowed in part: general damages allowed; special damages not allowed; costs and document costs allowed to plaintiff on standard scale
Legal Topics
Negligence, Burden of Proof, Overtaking Rules, Assessment of General and Special Damages, Silent Evidence (vehicle Damage, Scene)
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Road Traffic Law Evidence Law Damages Negligence Burden of Proof Overtaking Rules Assessment of General and Special Damages +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AKMAL RAFI BIN ANIFAH

Plaintif

MOHD SHAFFIE BIN MOHAMED YUSOF

Defendan Pertama

KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Defendan Kedua

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Accident / Judgment (liability and Quantum)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motorjip driver was negligent in turning causing collision
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was negligent in overtaking and speeding and therefore liable
  3. 3 How the burden of proof and evidential onus shifts between parties

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the defendant's version was more probable: the motorjip had signalled and stopped to turn and the plaintiff overtook on the right at speed, failed to keep a proper lookout and a safe distance, and therefore the plaintiff was negligent; accordingly liability was attributed to the plaintiff and the court awarded or assessed damages and costs consistent with findings and evidence.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims allowed in part: general damages allowed; special damages not allowed; costs and document costs allowed to plaintiff on standard scale

Orders

  • General damages awarded RM15,000.00
  • Special damages not allowed (claim not proved)