1. ) GUNALAN A/L SANKARAN 2. ) MEGALIFT SDN BHD v JOTHILETCHUMI A/P PERIASAMY (Seorang wakil diri litigasi kepada KESAVAN A/L RAJASEKAR seorang yang kurang upaya dan/atau dari segi perubatan seorang yang tidak waras (unsound mind)

Case Significance

Illustrates the higher standard of care expected of heavy-vehicle operators carrying oversized loads: a trailer whose load projected across the oncoming carriageway without proper warning or a valid permit bore the predominant share of liability, and the defendants' bid to shift full blame to the injured plaintiff was rejected.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam disposes of cross-appeals from the Sessions Court in a serious road-accident claim, and this record concerns the defendants' appeal. The plaintiff, who suffered catastrophic brain injury and is of unsound mind and sues through a litigation representative, had been injured when the defendants' articulated trailer, carrying an unusually large 'cutter head' load, was involved in a collision in the early hours on a dark, narrow, unlit stretch of the Banting-Dengkil road; the load projected more than 1.5 metres across into the oncoming lane the plaintiff was using. The first defendant was the driver and the second defendant, Megalift Sdn Bhd, the operator. The Sessions Court had apportioned liability 70% to the defendants and 30% to the plaintiff, and decided quantum wholly in the plaintiff's favour. Both sides appealed: the defendants contended that the plaintiff should bear full responsibility, while the plaintiff sought to raise the defendants' liability to 100%. In the defendants' appeal, the court examined the evidence of negligence — the oversized load projecting across the carriageway without adequate warning lights, an invalid permit and failures in the escort standard operating procedure, and the higher duty of care owed by heavy vehicles, breaching rule 16 of the Road Traffic Rules 1959. It held that these matters established a strong case of negligence against the defendants and that, far from the plaintiff being wholly to blame, the defendants bore the greater responsibility. The court accordingly rejected the defendants' contention, revised the apportionment to 90% against the defendants and 10% against the plaintiff, and dismissed the defendants' appeal. It maintained the Sessions Court's quantum, adjusting only the amount payable to reflect the new apportionment, and awarded the costs of the appeals to the plaintiff. The court further held that the plaintiff's severe and lifelong injuries did not by themselves justify increasing the quantum, and that the additional heads the plaintiff sought exceeded the guideline range and were unsupported by evidence, so no basis for appellate interference with quantum arose.