CHAN KONG THOE v TRICILIA TANG PEI LU

Facts

Mr Chan Kong Thoe, then aged 54, was riding his motorcycle on 2 October 2014 when it collided with a car driven by Ms Tricilia Tang Pei Lu. In District Court Suit No 352 of 2022, consent interlocutory judgment was entered in 2018 with the defendant accepting 85% liability, and damages were assessed by a deputy registrar.

Mr Chan claimed that the accident injured his neck, back and knees, left him chronically disabled and largely unable to work as a security officer, and sought the agreed maximum recoverable sum of S$510,000. His heads of claim included aggravation of cervical and lumbar spondylosis, foraminal stenosis, a right knee ligament tear, scarring, pre-trial and future loss of earnings based on an accountant's report, loss of earning capacity, and medical and transport costs. The defendant accepted some minor injuries but said his present complaints came from pre-existing degenerative disease, a second motorcycle accident on 27 January 2015, or ageing. The medical records showed he had attended hospital for back and neck complaints years before 2014, with an MRI in 2004 showing mild spondylosis and foraminal stenosis.

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff and his account to the medical experts were credible.
2. Whether the 2014 accident caused or aggravated the spinal and knee conditions claimed.
3. Whether the accountant's report should be given weight, and what loss of earnings or earning capacity was proved.
4. What medical, equipment and transport expenses, past and future, were recoverable.

Holding

The District Court allowed the claim in part, awarding damages only for injuries and losses the evidence showed were caused by the 2014 accident: S$10,000 in general damages (S$3,000 for abrasions and S$7,000 for soft tissue injuries to the right knee, shoulder and upper limb), S$276.65 for pre-trial loss of earnings, S$108 for medical expenses and S$30 for transport. All other heads were rejected.

Reasoning

On credibility, the court found the plaintiff unreliable. His account of the accident grew more severe over time, from not being flung on the day itself to being flung 50m at the hearing. He had denied neck or back injury at triage, and he did not tell his doctors or the experts about the 2015 accident or his long history of spinal complaints. The experts' early opinions, built on that account, could not be relied on.

On causation, the records showed spondylosis and foraminal stenosis well before 2014, and an orthopaedic spine surgeon who examined him in March 2015 found only soft tissue injuries that had healed. Neck pain was first recorded after the 2015 accident. Once given the full records, the plaintiff's own experts accepted only a possibility of aggravation. A report asserting aggravation without reasons carried no weight. There was no ligament tear; the meniscus tear and mucoid degeneration were degenerative, and no scarring was shown.

On earnings, the accountant was not called, and his report rested on untested assumptions, including working to age 75, continuous full-time employment and projections drawn from post-accident jobs, so it received no weight. The plaintiff was proved to have lost only five days of work on medical leave. He left later jobs for reasons unrelated to the accident, and no real risk to his earning capacity was shown.

On expenses, only the hospital bill for the day of the accident and a reasonable trip home were proved. No evidence supported the equipment purchases, and no expert said future surgery was needed because of the accident.

From the judgment