WEE SOON WAH v SYN CHEVOR CHEE MENG TROY ANTHONY

Facts

On 11 May 2023, at about 1230am, Wee Soon Wah was driving his taxi with a passenger along Loyang Avenue, an 8-lane dual carriageway split by a concrete divider. Syn Chevor Chee Meng Troy Anthony was driving against the flow of traffic, under the influence of alcohol, from the opposite direction. Realising this, he tried to turn into Old Tampines Road, and the two vehicles collided. Video evidence showed that Mr Wee had a green light, saw a vehicle pass through the junction ahead, and drove past two vehicles, one of them a tall lorry, still stationary at the junction, before colliding with Mr Syn's car, which had travelled approximately 250 metres against traffic.

In DC/OC 538/2024 Mr Wee sued Mr Syn for damages. Mr Syn conceded liability but said Mr Wee was contributorily negligent. The passenger had sued Mr Syn in DC/OC 1089/2023, and in that action Mr Syn sought contribution from Mr Wee as third party. This decision dealt with liability in both actions.

Issues

1. Whether Mr Wee failed to keep a proper lookout given the stationary vehicles at the junction
2. Whether Mr Wee could reasonably have anticipated a car driving against traffic
3. Whether Mr Wee acted unreasonably by not swerving to avoid or lessen the collision

Holding

The court held Mr Syn 100 percent liable for the accident, with no liability attributed to Mr Wee, so Mr Wee's claim was allowed on liability and Mr Syn's claim for contribution against him failed.

Reasoning

The court applied the test for contributory negligence in Ng Swee Eng (administrator of the estate of Tan Chee Wee, deceased) v Ang Oh Chuan [2002] SGHC 137, noting that Mr Syn's criminal conduct and Mr Wee's right of way did not by themselves rule out a finding against Mr Wee.

The road conditions did not put Mr Wee on alert. The lights had changed only about 1-2 seconds earlier, vehicles often move off a moment after a green light, another car had just driven through, and there were no horns or hazard lights signalling trouble.

Mr Syn's conduct was too remote for a reasonable driver to contemplate: he was driving the wrong way on a divided carriageway and making a turn that should have been made at a signalised junction. Drawing on Thorben Langvad Linneberg v Leong Mei Kuen [2013] 1 SLR 207, a motorist need not guard against remote possibilities. Mr Wee's attention was reasonably on traffic that could join from Old Tampines Road on his left.

Finally, Mr Wee had only a split second to react, and his view of Mr Syn's car would have been blocked by the stationary vehicles, especially the lorry. There was no merit in the contention that he should have swerved.

From the judgment