CHEN BOON KWEE 1. MOHAMAD NG BIN ABDULLAH 2. SIN HOCK SOON TRANSPORT SDN BHD 3. MASRI BIN TAMIN 4. TAN SAW KHENG

CHEN BOON KWEE 1. MOHAMAD NG BIN ABDULLAH 2. SIN HOCK SOON TRANSPORT SDN BHD 3. MASRI BIN TAMIN 4. TAN SAW KHENG

Because the plaintiff was being carried pursuant to his contract of employment and the driver had the owner's permission to use the vehicle, the driver was an authorised agent for the trip; accordingly, under Road Transport Act ss91 and 96 and binding authorities the owner (defendant fourth) is vicariously liable for the driver's negligence and the insurer is obliged to satisfy judgment.

Citation
JC-A53KJ-173-11-2017 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Appellant (defendant 4): TAN SAW KHENG; Respondent (plaintiff in Original Suit): CHEN BOON KWEE; Respondent (defendant 1): MOHAMAD NG BIN ABDULLAH; Respondent (defendant 2): SIN HOCK SOON TRANSPORT SDN BHD; Respondent (defendant 3/driver): MASRI BIN TAMIN
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 November 2019
Case Number
JC-A53KJ-173-11-2017 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Decision on Appeal (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; trial finding that defendant fourth is vicariously liable affirmed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability of Vehicle Owner, Passenger Carried Pursuant to Contract of Employment, Interpretation of Road Transport Act S91 and S96, Insurer's Duty to Satisfy Judgment
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Road Transport Law Insurance Law Agency Law Vicarious Liability Vicarious Liability of Vehicle Owner Passenger Carried Pursuant to Contract of Employment Interpretation of Road Transport Act S91 and S96 +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TAN SAW KHENG

Appellant (defendant 4)

CHEN BOON KWEE

Respondent (plaintiff in Original Suit)

MOHAMAD NG BIN ABDULLAH

Respondent (defendant 1)

SIN HOCK SOON TRANSPORT SDN BHD

Respondent (defendant 2)

MASRI BIN TAMIN

Respondent (defendant 3/driver)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Decision on Appeal (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the owner (defendant fourth) is vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver (defendant third)
  2. 2 Whether the passenger was being carried pursuant to a contract of employment such that Road Transport Act s91(1)(bb) and s96 apply
  3. 3 Whether simple permission to use the vehicle creates an agency/authorised driver relationship giving rise to vicarious liability

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff was being carried pursuant to his contract of employment and the driver had the owner's permission to use the vehicle, the driver was an authorised agent for the trip; accordingly, under Road Transport Act ss91 and 96 and binding authorities the owner (defendant fourth) is vicariously liable for the driver's negligence and the insurer is obliged to satisfy judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; trial finding that defendant fourth is vicariously liable affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Defendant fourth (Tan Saw Kheng) held vicariously liable for the plaintiff's injuries arising from the accident