1. ) Rohani Binti Hashim 2. ) XXXX 1. ) Ibrahim Pikri Bin Daud 2. ) KEMENTERIAN KESIHATAN MALAYSIA 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

1. ) Rohani Binti Hashim 2. ) XXXX 1. ) Ibrahim Pikri Bin Daud 2. ) KEMENTERIAN KESIHATAN MALAYSIA 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Court found independent and corroborative evidence (independent witness, police investigation, damage patterns) established the plaintiff made an unlawful sudden U-turn; plaintiff was 100% negligent; defendants not negligent; plaintiffs' claims dismissed and defendants' counterclaim for repair costs allowed.

Citation
DA-A51KJ-3-06/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff First: Rohani bin Hashim; Plaintiff Second (minor): Che Nor Elyana binti Che Mohd Sabri; Defendant First: Ibrahim Pikri bin Daud; Defendant Second: Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia; Defendant Third: Kerajaan Malaysia
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 May 2025
Case Number
DA-A51KJ-3-06/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence (road Traffic Accident) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; Defendants' counterclaim allowed.
Legal Topics
U Turns and Traffic Rules, Burden of Proof, Contributory Negligence, Quantum of Special Damages, Police Investigation and Summons
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Negligence Road Traffic Law Evidence Law Civil Damages U Turns and Traffic Rules Burden of Proof Contributory Negligence +2 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rohani bin Hashim

Plaintiff First

Che Nor Elyana binti Che Mohd Sabri

Plaintiff Second (minor)

Ibrahim Pikri bin Daud

Defendant First

Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia

Defendant Second

Kerajaan Malaysia

Defendant Third

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence (road Traffic Accident) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which version of events is more probable and who is liable?
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was wholly negligent or contributory negligence applied
  3. 3 Whether defendants are entitled to counterclaim for repair costs

Ratio Decidendi

Court found independent and corroborative evidence (independent witness, police investigation, damage patterns) established the plaintiff made an unlawful sudden U-turn; plaintiff was 100% negligent; defendants not negligent; plaintiffs' claims dismissed and defendants' counterclaim for repair costs allowed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; Defendants' counterclaim allowed.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with costs.
  • Defendants' counterclaim is allowed; defendants awarded RM10,452.47 for repair costs.