KAMARIAH BINTI ALI v 1. ) MASLIZA BINTI MOHAMED 2. ) MOHD SAHABUDDIN BIN MOHAMED 3. ) TOKIO MARINE INSURANS (M) BERHAD

da-12b-27-08-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 2 February 2025 • DA-12B-27-08/2024 • 18 min read
8 cases cited (0 SG, 8 foreign)

Outcome

Oleh itu, tuntutan plaintif terhadap defendan pertama sepatutnya dibenarkan tanpa mengira motosikal manakah yang ditunggang oleh defendan pertama pada masa kejadian tersebut.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (da-12b-27-08-2024). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (7)

Parties (4)

Case Significance

Illustrates the duty of a driver emerging from a junction onto a major road: the obligation is not merely to stop at the Halt line but to wait until it is safe, and a driver who crosses into the path of oncoming traffic bears full liability for the collision.

This High Court decision at Kota Bharu concerns an appeal on liability from a Sessions Court judgment in a road-accident claim, and the apportionment of fault at a junction. The appellant had sued the first respondent (said to be the other driver), a second respondent and the motor insurer; the Sessions Court dismissed the claim, and the appeal, confined to liability, followed. Because the individual parties are natural persons named only as litigants, this analysis refers to them by role, while the insurer is named.

The court's reasoning focused on the conduct of the first respondent at the junction where the accident occurred. It found that the first respondent had emerged from the junction and entered the major road in an unsafe manner. Even accepting the first respondent's own account that he had stopped at the Halt line, he remained to blame: having a duty to give way to traffic on the major road, he should have waited long enough to allow an approaching bus, travelling on the major road and coming from his right, to pass before attempting to cross; instead he took a risk and crossed in the face of the oncoming vehicle. On that basis the first respondent, who had entered the main carriageway unsafely, was held 100% liable for the accident, and the claim against him ought to have been allowed regardless of which motorcycle was involved.

The court therefore allowed the appeal in part, holding the first respondent wholly liable, while upholding the Sessions Court's dismissal of the claim against the second and third respondents. The judgment is a useful illustration of the duty owed by a driver emerging from a minor road or junction onto a major road: the obligation is not merely to stop at the Halt line but to wait until it is genuinely safe to proceed, and a driver who crosses into the path of oncoming traffic on the major road bears full responsibility for the resulting collision.

Why was the first respondent held wholly liable?

Because he emerged from the junction onto the major road unsafely; even if he had stopped at the Halt line, he should have waited for the approaching bus on the major road coming from his right to pass, but instead took a risk and crossed into its path, making him 100% to blame.

What was the outcome of the appeal?

The court allowed the appeal in part, holding the first respondent 100% liable for the accident, while upholding the Sessions Court's dismissal of the claim against the second and third respondents.

Cases Cited (8)

MY (8)
[1969] 1 MLJ 64 [1998] 5 MLRH 207 [1999] 4 CLJ 448 [1999] 5 MLJ 172 [2014] 4 MLJ 478 [2020] 10 CLJ 1 [2020] 12 MLJ 67 [2020] 8 AMR 22

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (da-12b-27-08-2024)