1. ) XXXX 2. ) Mohamad Faezuddin Bin Ismail v Muhamad Mustaqim Bin Zulkeflee

Case Significance

Emphasises resolving disputed accident liability by the "bukti senyap" (silent, real physical evidence) rather than arbitrary percentage apportionment between conflicting accounts.

This High Court decision at Kota Bharu is an appeal on liability and quantum in a road-accident damages claim, arising out of a night-time collision between two motorcycles ridden by the plaintiffs and a car driven by the defendant. At the time of the accident the two motorcycle riders were children, and the claim was brought on their behalf through their fathers as next friends. The Sessions Court had apportioned liability at 60 per cent against the plaintiffs and 40 per cent against the defendant, and the plaintiffs appealed, while the defendant cross-appealed against being held liable at all. The central criticism of the trial court’s approach was that it is wrong to fix an apportionment of 50:50, 60:40 or any other ratio between the parties without a proper evidential basis showing which side was actually responsible. Where there are two conflicting versions of how an accident happened, the Court emphasised the importance of examining the "bukti senyap" (the silent, or real, physical evidence) — the road layout, the bend and the likely paths of the vehicles — to find guidance and direction. On that analysis the Court reasoned that vehicles negotiating the relevant bends would tend to drift in a way inconsistent with the plaintiffs’ account. It distinguished Siti Rohani bte Mohd Shah, which concerned a large lorry that might cut a corner and encroach into an oncoming lane, holding it unreasonable to apply the same assumption to the defendant’s small car. The Court therefore allowed the defendant’s cross-appeal on liability, set aside the Sessions Court’s apportionment, and held that the defendant bore no liability for the accident, with the consequence that the third parties were likewise not liable. Per Mohd Rosli bin Yusoff JC, the judgment illustrates the proper use of real evidence over arbitrary apportionment in accident cases.