MUHAMMAD HILMI HAKIM BIN ABDUL HALIM SADIKIN BIN SUHNI

MUHAMMAD HILMI HAKIM BIN ABDUL HALIM SADIKIN BIN SUHNI

The Sessions Court's equal apportionment was set aside because the judge failed to properly account for undisputed evidence that the respondent suffered glaucoma and could not see clearly in his right eye prior to the collision; this impairment materially increased the respondent's contributory negligence. The respondent's police report was admissible as it recorded the respondent's own account taken by the investigating officer. Liability is re-apportioned 60% to the respondent and 40% to the appellant.

Citation
BA-12B-117-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Muhammad Hilmi Hakim bin Abdull Halim; Respondent / Defendant: Sadikin bin Suhni
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 October 2021
Case Number
BA-12B-117-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (motor Vehicle Accident/negligence) / High Court Appeal Against Sessions Court Liability Finding; Appeal Against Quantum Withdrawn Prior to Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Sessions Court decision on liability set aside and replaced
Legal Topics
Liability Apportionment, Contributory Negligence, Appellate Review (plainly Wrong), Hearsay/admissibility, Medical Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Negligence Motor Vehicle Accidents Evidence Liability Apportionment Contributory Negligence Appellate Review (plainly Wrong) Hearsay/admissibility +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Hilmi Hakim bin Abdull Halim

Appellant / Plaintiff

Sadikin bin Suhni

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (motor Vehicle Accident/negligence) / High Court Appeal Against Sessions Court Liability Finding; Appeal Against Quantum Withdrawn Prior to Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Court Judge was plainly wrong in apportioning liability equally
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's police report was hearsay and inadmissible
  3. 3 Whether the Sessions Court erred in disregarding evidence that the defendant could not see clearly in his right eye prior to the accident

Ratio Decidendi

The Sessions Court's equal apportionment was set aside because the judge failed to properly account for undisputed evidence that the respondent suffered glaucoma and could not see clearly in his right eye prior to the collision; this impairment materially increased the respondent's contributory negligence. The respondent's police report was admissible as it recorded the respondent's own account taken by the investigating officer. Liability is re-apportioned 60% to the respondent and 40% to the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Sessions Court decision on liability set aside and replaced

Orders

  • Appeal allowed on liability
  • Sessions Court Judge's equal apportionment set aside