1. ) NUR FARIHA BINTI HAIMI (Menuntut sebagai isteri yang sah dan tanggungan yang sah kepada Mohd Helmi Bin Ngadimin (Simati) untuk kehilangan tanggungan, kesedihan dan dukacitaan serta kerugian perbelanjaan di bawah Seksyen 7, Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956 serta menuntut untuk faedah estet Simati di bawah Seksyen 8, Akta Undang-Undang Sivil 1956) 2. ) XXXX v SYED MUZAFFAR SHAH BIN SYED AZMAN SHAH

Case Significance

Illustrates the appellate treatment of a liability finding in a fatal running-down claim under the Civil Law Act 1956: the assessment of fault is for the trial court on the whole of the evidence, an investigating officer's opinion does not determine negligence, and a finding that the deceased's own negligence caused the accident will not be disturbed absent a clear error.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam is an appeal in a fatal road-accident claim brought by the dependants of a deceased motorcyclist. The claim was pursued by the deceased's widow and children under section 7 of the Civil Law Act 1956, for loss of dependency, bereavement and expenses, and for the benefit of the deceased's estate under section 8 of the same Act. The accident occurred when the deceased's motorcycle collided into the rear of the respondent's motorcycle, and the respondent contended that the collision was caused by the deceased's own negligence and that no lane change had been made. At trial the appellants called three witnesses, including the investigating officer and the deceased's employer, while the respondent testified in his own defence. After a full trial the Sessions Court dismissed the dependants' claim on liability — finding, in effect, that the deceased's own negligence caused the collision — but went on to assess and award limited damages on quantum. The dependants appealed on liability, arguing that fault lay with the respondent. The High Court reiterated that whether a party is liable in negligence is for the court to decide and not to be established by an investigating officer's opinion, and that appellate intervention is justified only where the trial judge failed to consider the entire evidence and the issues. Finding no significant or compelling reason to differ from the Sessions Court's conclusions, it dismissed the appeal and upheld the Sessions Court's judgment in its entirety, making no order as to costs as the parties had agreed. Delivered by Jamhirah Ali J, the judgment is a useful illustration of the appellate treatment of a liability finding in a running-down claim: the assessment of fault is for the trial court on the whole of the evidence, an investigating officer's opinion does not determine negligence, and an appellate court will not disturb a finding that the deceased's own negligence caused the accident absent a clear error.