Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Quantum for prosthesis

Legal area

Court

25 Oct 2023

1. ) YUSOF BIN PUTEH 2. ) FAIZAH BINTI ISMAIL KELSOM BINTI MOHAMAD

Citation

TA-B53KJ-4-02/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

TA-B53KJ-4-02/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the photographic and physical 'silent evidence' (damage patterns and tree impact) supported the Plaintiffs' version that Defendant crossed into Plaintiffs' lane; Defendant was 100% liable. The prosthesis claim was allowed but limited to a reasonable and available option (Defendant's quotation) with a 1/3 contingency deduction, producing an award of RM176,036.00, because there was no expert evidence proving the SOCSO prosthesis was unsuitable and the court must avoid awarding an extravagant device without justification.
25 Aug 2020

AMIL BIN SALLEH AFHAM WAJDI BIN AHMAD (Seorang budak yang mendakwa melalui Sahabat Wakil dan bapanya yang sah iaitu Ahmad bin Mohd Zain)

Citation

DA-12B-30-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-12B-30-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court's finding that the plaintiff's version of events and the marked point of impact 'X' were more probable was correct because the marking and silent evidence were unchallenged and the failure to cross-examine amounted to acceptance; therefore liability apportioned 80% to appellant and 20% contributory negligence to respondent is affirmed, and there was no basis to disturb the quantum for prosthesis.