KO WAH v SAMIKANNU MANICKAVASAKAR & Anor

Facts

On 21 June 2019 the 1st defendant knocked down Mr Ko Wah in a motor accident. Mr Ko suffered severe head injuries, including a skull fracture and extensive acute subdural haematoma, and underwent a decompressive craniectomy, a tracheostomy and later a cranioplasty. For the rest of his life he was bedridden, fully dependent on caregivers, and assessed as permanently mentally incapacitated. He died on 2 October 2024, before closing submissions in the assessment. His son, Ko Wei Ze Jonathan, continued the claim as administrator of the estate.

District Court Suit No 1025 of 2021 (Assessment of Damages 489 of 2023) came before a Deputy Registrar to assess damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, loss of pre-trial earnings, medical expenses and other accident-related expenses. The defence was conducted on the instructions of NTUC Income, the defendants' motor insurer. On its instructions the defendants denied any award for pain and suffering or loss of amenities on the basis that Mr Ko had been comatose throughout, and resisted ambulance charges and medical expenses paid through MediShield Life. They also objected to many other items as unrelated to the accident or unnecessarily expensive.

Issues

1. Whether, and how much, damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities should be awarded for a victim whose awareness varied over the years after the accident.
2. Whether medical expenses paid through MediShield Life, and ambulance charges, were recoverable.
3. Whether special damages could be awarded for the period from November 2023 to his death without receipts.
4. How caregiver, milk powder, loss of earnings and other expenses should be quantified.

Holding

The court allowed the claims in part and awarded total damages of $417,304.10, comprising general damages of $218,000 ($210,000 for pain and suffering and $8,000 for loss of amenities) and special damages of $199,304.10. Items not shown to arise from the accident, such as medication for pre-existing conditions and unexplained receipts, were rejected. Interest was ordered at the usual rates, with post-judgment interest running from 16 September 2025, and costs were to be heard later.

Reasoning

Pain and suffering depends on awareness, while loss of amenities is awarded for the deprivation itself, as Tan Kok Lam (next friend to Teng Eng) v Hong Choon Peng [2001] SGCA 27 explained. On the medical records, the court found periods when Mr Ko was unconscious, reasonably conscious, and of deteriorating awareness. It fixed a usual sum of roughly $400,000 for the skull and brain injuries, using the Guidelines adjusted for inflation, awarded a share for the conscious period, a further discounted share for the declining period, and an amount for loss of amenities in the unconscious periods by reference to Tan Kok Lam. The court noted that neither side's all-or-nothing position matched the evidence and that NTUC Income declined to explain its stance.

Ambulance rides for a bedridden man supported by hospital invoices were plainly necessary. Following Lo Kok Jong v Eng Beng [2024] SGCA 28, MediShield Life is insurance for which premiums were paid, so its payouts fell within the insurance exception to the rule against double recovery; the court described the objection as callous and meritless.

For expenses after November 2023, applying the flexible approach in Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman and another v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 111, the court estimated conservatively from the preceding year's monthly averages. The receipts had stopped because the claim for future expenses fell away on Mr Ko's death, which was not the family's fault.

Loss of earnings was assessed on one and a half more years of work given his age and health. Two thirds of the helper's salaries were allowed since she also did housework. The specialised milk formula was justified, and failure to mitigate had been neither pleaded nor proved, but a 60% discount reflected food he would have bought anyway. The court noted that NTUC Income's late concessions came after the costs had been incurred.

From the judgment