Erin Brooke Mullin and another v Rosli Bin Salim and another

Erin Brooke Mullin and another v Rosli Bin Salim and another

The court found the first defendant wholly liable: he caused the first accident by cutting into the bus's path (supported by his conviction and admissions) and, in any event, his subsequent voluntary act of stepping on the accelerator instead of braking constituted a novus actus interveniens that broke any causal link to the second defendant; the first defendant's failure to call his wife justified an adverse inference under s116(g).

Citation
[2012] SGHCR 9027
Parties
First Plaintiff: Erin Brooke Mullin; Second Plaintiff: Jason Elliot Mullin; First Defendant: Rosli Bin Salim; Second Defendant: Toh Yoke Chin
Court
High Court Registrar
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
3 March 2012
Case Number
Suit No 540 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Claim (motor Accident) / Trial Liability Determination Between Defendants; Judgment Reserved and Delivered
Outcome
First defendant (Rosli Bin Salim) found wholly liable for the plaintiffs' claim arising from the second accident; second defendant (Toh Yoke Chin) not liable for the plaintiffs' claim.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Causation, Novus Actus Interveniens, Adverse Inference, Admission by Criminal Conviction (s45 a Evidence Act), Admissibility of Expert Reports
Source Language
English
Tort Evidence Civil Procedure Negligence Causation Novus Actus Interveniens Adverse Inference Admission by Criminal Conviction (s45 a Evidence Act) +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Erin Brooke Mullin

First Plaintiff

Jason Elliot Mullin

Second Plaintiff

Rosli Bin Salim

First Defendant

Toh Yoke Chin

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Personal Injury Claim (motor Accident) / Trial Liability Determination Between Defendants; Judgment Reserved and Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who caused the initial collision (first accident)?
  2. 2 Whether the chain of causation was broken between the first and second accidents (novus actus interveniens)
  3. 3 Admissibility and evidential weight of the first defendant's criminal conviction and of an expert report

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the first defendant wholly liable: he caused the first accident by cutting into the bus's path (supported by his conviction and admissions) and, in any event, his subsequent voluntary act of stepping on the accelerator instead of braking constituted a novus actus interveniens that broke any causal link to the second defendant; the first defendant's failure to call his wife justified an adverse inference under s116(g).

Court Disposition

First defendant (Rosli Bin Salim) found wholly liable for the plaintiffs' claim arising from the second accident; second defendant (Toh Yoke Chin) not liable for the plaintiffs' claim.

Orders

  • First defendant to bear liability for the plaintiffs' claim (first defendant wholly liable)
  • Second defendant is entitled to costs from the first defendant to be taxed on a standard basis unless otherwise agreed