SYARIKAT AIR NEGERI SEMBILAN SDN.BHD v 1. ) LUQMAN HAKIM BIN HENDON (Diatas kapasiti sendiri, sebagai suami yang sah dan orang tanggungan bagi NORHAMIZAH BINTI MAHADI (fatal), Simati serta wakil litigasi bagi Plaintif Kedua, Plaintif ketiga dan Plaintif Keempat) 2. ) XXXX 3. ) JURUTERA DAERAH PEJABAT JURUTERA DAERAH TAMPIN 4. ) JABATAN KERJA RAYA DAERAH TAMPIN 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Case Significance

A companion fatal road-accident appeal, from the maintaining authority's standpoint, on liability for a road hazard caused by a leaking utility pipe and the non-deductibility of a pension in assessing dependency damages.

This High Court decision at Seremban is the companion appeal, heard together with a related civil appeal, arising from a fatal road accident and brought by the state water company as appellant. The dependants of a deceased motorist had claimed that the accident occurred when the car struck a pothole or break in the road surface on the Tampin–Gemas road, a defect said to have been produced by a leaking water pipe running beneath the road and maintained and controlled by the water company. The driver died and a passenger sustained serious injuries. Because the deceased and the individual dependants are natural persons, this analysis refers to them by role, while the water company and the public works department are named institutionally.

For the appellant water company, the appeal put in issue whether it could be fixed with liability for a road-surface defect arising from a subterranean pipe leak — a question turning on the scope and breach of its duty to maintain the pipe so as not to endanger road users — and whether the quantum awarded below was sustainable. The court's analysis therefore combined the ordinary principles of negligence, applied to a body responsible for buried infrastructure whose failure can manifest as a surface hazard, with the assessment of the dependency claim.

On quantum, the court allowed a monthly sum for the loss of dependency suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the death, having regard to the deceased's undisputed net monthly earnings as a teacher together with her allowances. It reaffirmed that the pension received by the first plaintiff following the death was not to be brought into account in computing the dependency, a collateral benefit that does not reduce the loss the dependants may recover. The judgment is a useful illustration, from the maintaining authority's standpoint, of liability for a road hazard caused by a leaking utility pipe and of the non-deductibility of a pension in the assessment of fatal-accident dependency damages.