Baek Jongwoo v John s/o Susaretnam

On 12 May 2021, Mr John s/o Susaretnam, a private-hire driver, picked up Mr Baek Jongwoo outside International Plaza. Shortly afterwards, at the junction of Anson Road and Maxwell Road, Mr John drove through a red light and his car hit a third-party vehicle crossing on his right with a green light. Mr Baek, seated in the rear, was injured. It was undisputed that he did not fasten his seatbelt at any point in the journey.

Mr Baek sued in District Court Originating Claim No 630 of 2024. Trial was bifurcated, with the first stage limited to responsibility for the accident. Mr Baek sought a finding that Mr John was 100% liable and that he bore no contributory negligence, on the basis that he had not had enough time to put on his seatbelt before the collision. His affidavit said it took less than one minute to reach the junction; at trial he said the collision happened within 10 to 20 seconds of boarding, while he was putting his backpack and iPad aside. Mr John admitted running the red light and accepted that he owed and breached a duty of care, but could not recall whether he had reminded Mr Baek to buckle up. On 18 September 2025 the court gave brief oral grounds and entered interlocutory judgment. Mr Baek appealed, and these are the full grounds.

1. Whether Mr John owed and breached a duty of care to his passenger.
2. Whether a passenger's obligation to wear a seatbelt arises before the vehicle moves off, so that the time available after boarding is irrelevant.
3. Whether, in any event, Mr Baek failed to fasten his seatbelt within a reasonable time and his failure contributed to his injuries.
4. How responsibility for Mr Baek's injuries should be apportioned between the two men.

On the first issue, duty and breach were conceded. The court found that Mr John failed to stop at the red light and to give way to the straight-going vehicle, but rejected the claim that he was speeding; even on Mr Baek's own timing the speed was well under the limit.

On the second issue, contributory negligence for not wearing a seatbelt concerns responsibility for the injuries, not the collision. Reading Rules 4 and 5 of the seatbelt rules together, the court held that a passenger must fasten the belt before the vehicle moves off. Being on the road is dangerous even when stationary, and a driver can only check compliance safely before setting off. This was not too onerous, since a passenger can ask a private-hire driver to wait at the pick-up point. Not having enough time was not the same as having no seatbelt available.

On the third issue, the court found Mr Baek never attempted to fasten his belt and rejected his late claim that he was doing so. Even if reasonable time were allowed, putting a backpack and iPad aside needed only seconds, his added explanations were not credible, and on his own account a belt would have restrained his body and lessened the blow to his head.

On apportionment, the court followed the Motor Accident Guide scenario for an unbelted passenger and a negligent driver. Mr John was more blameworthy for running the light, which endangered others as well. His failure to ensure Mr Baek buckled up did not reduce Mr Baek's share, as adult passengers should not need telling.

The District Court allowed the claim in part, entering interlocutory judgment that Mr John owed and breached his duty of care and that the trial on the remaining issues of liability and quantum proceed on the basis that Mr John was 80% responsible, with Mr Baek bearing 20% for his own injuries. Costs of the first stage were reserved.