PROJEK PENYELENGGARAAN LEBUHRAYA BERHAD (PROPEL) v 1. ) ZAKARIA BIN HAMID (Bapa kandung kepada simati, AZIZI BIN ZAKARIA) 2. ) GAYAH BINTI DOCHIK ( Ibu kandung kepada simati, AZIZI BIN ZAKARIA)

Case Significance

Illustrates a highway maintenance contractor's duty of reasonable care to keep a highway safe under the Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984, and the limits of appellate intervention in concurrent negligence findings and a loss-of-dependency award.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns the liability of a highway maintenance contractor in negligence for the death of a road user, heard together with the related appeal by the highway concessionaire. The appellant, Projek Penyelenggaraan Lebuhraya Berhad (PROPEL), the contractor responsible for maintaining the highway, appealed against the decision holding it liable, alongside the concessionaire, to the respondents, the parents of a deceased road user. The respondents' claim was founded on negligence and breach of the duty to maintain and keep the highway in good repair and condition, and the appeal required the court to consider the scope of the contractor's duty of care in carrying out the maintenance function, the interaction of that duty with the statutory framework under the Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984, and whether the highway-patrol arrangements, including the PLUSRonda patrol, amounted to reasonable care to keep the road safe for users. The court examined whether the concurrent findings of the Sessions Court and the High Court on liability disclosed any error justifying appellate intervention and concluded that they did not. On damages, it addressed the respondents' loss-of-dependency award, explaining that the increase allowed at the High Court had corrected a discrepancy between the quantum pronounced in open court and that recorded in the written grounds, rather than reflecting a view that the Sessions Court's figure was inadequate, and it declined to disturb that award, noting that the appellants had led no evidence to counter the respondents' account of the deceased's monthly contribution. The court dismissed the contractor's appeal, together with the related concessionaire's appeal, with costs, and affirmed the order of the High Court. The decision reinforces that liability for a highway death may rest concurrently on both the concessionaire and its maintenance contractor, each owing an independent duty to take reasonable care to keep the road safe. The judgment is a useful illustration of a highway maintenance contractor's duty of reasonable care and of the limits of appellate intervention in negligence findings and quantum.