DIANA BOOI YEE TZE v ANTHONY LEE ZHEN LIN

Facts

On the evening of 28 May 2020, Diana Booi Yee Tze (Ms Booi) was crossing a service road in front of Block 106D Punggol Field, from a pedestrian pavement towards the pavement opposite, when she was struck by a car driven by Anthony Lee Zhen Lin (Mr Lee), which had just passed a carpark gantry and was negotiating a right bend. She suffered multiple fractures to her hip and pelvic bone. Mr Lee later pleaded guilty to driving without reasonable consideration under s 65(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act, for failing to keep a proper lookout while negotiating the bend, and on 8 September 2021 was fined $5,000 and disqualified for five years.

Ms Booi sued in Originating Claim No 322 of 2023, and the trial dealt with liability first. Her account was that she checked both ways, that three cars were queued at the gantry, and that she was about three-quarters across, near the far kerb, when the car, having strayed into the outbound lane, hit her from behind. Mr Lee said he was driving at 10km/h to 15km/h in the inbound lane, that she suddenly dashed diagonally across in front of him, and that only his right mirror touched her. There were no eyewitnesses.

Issues

1. Whether Ms Booi kept a proper lookout before and while crossing the road
2. Where Ms Booi and the car were on the road when the collision happened, and how fast Mr Lee was driving
3. What weight Mr Lee's guilty plea and statement of facts carried in the civil claim
4. Whether Ms Booi was contributorily negligent

Holding

The High Court allowed the claim on liability and ordered interlocutory judgment for Ms Booi on the basis that Mr Lee was fully liable for the accident, finding no contributory negligence. Costs were to be heard later.

Reasoning

The court preferred Ms Booi's account as forthright and consistent from the moment of the accident through her police reports, pleadings and affidavit.

On position, she had protested at the scene that he had driven into her lane, which he confirmed. His police report and affidavit were silent on where his car was, and in court his evidence shifted, from staying in the inbound lane, to touching the divider, to being slightly over. A photograph taken almost immediately after showed the mirror in the middle of the outbound lane and Ms Booi near its kerb, and Mr Lee conceded it supported her version. On speed, if he had been moving so slowly and braked at once, the car would have stopped almost at once rather than travelling over 7m further; the detached mirror and her fractures were more consistent with a much faster speed. Counsel's reaction-time calculations rested on his rejected version. The court found he failed to keep a proper lookout and was more likely than not speeding.

The guilty plea was admissible under s 45A of the Evidence Act 1893 and relevant, following Ong Bee Nah v Won Siew Wan (Yong Tian Choy, third party) [2005] 2 SLR(R) 455, but its weight depended on the facts. It said nothing about speed, whether she dashed, or the lane of impact, so the court did not need to rely on it.

On contributory negligence, weighing causative responsibility and blameworthiness, the court found Ms Booi acted reasonably: she used a designated crossing, no vehicle was near when she stepped off, and she was hit from behind by a car on the wrong side. It was not reasonable to expect her to look back for a car speeding the wrong way. Cases such as Asnah bte Ab Rahman v Li Jianlin [2016] 2 SLR 944 were distinguished as involving pedestrians hit from the side they should have watched or stepping out between parked cars.

From the judgment