Tan Ai Ngoh v Shaik Farid bin Oli Abdul Latiff

On 03 August 2018, a car driven by Shaik Farid bin Oli Abdul Latiff hit Tan Ai Ngoh, a pedestrian who was 66 years old at the time and 73 years old by the assessment hearing. In 2022 the parties entered a consent interlocutory judgment in her favour, with 80% of damages to be assessed. Deputy Registrar Lee Jia En Gloria heard the assessment in District Court Suit No 1444 of 2021 over several days, with evidence from two orthopaedic surgeons, Dr Chang for the plaintiff and Dr Lim for the defendant, and from a neurologist, Dr Hwang.

Ms Tan suffered a left tibial plateau fracture fixed surgically at Tan Tock Seng Hospital on 13 August 2018, fractures of the 4th and 5th metatarsals of the right foot and a left 1st metatarsal fracture, bruising, two scars, and later a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder with features of anxiety. She also claimed a head injury causing headaches and dizziness. Before the accident she had done physical jobs such as cooking and cleaning; she said she was about to start work as a cook at a wanton shop, and after the accident she worked part-time at a fast-food restaurant from 24 October 2019 to 30 June 2020. The main disputes were whether her knee pain was permanent and how far her age limited her employability.

1. Whether the residual knee pain was permanent or caused by the implant and likely to resolve.
2. Whether the plaintiff suffered a head injury and whether its effects were permanent.
3. Whether and in what sum loss of earning capacity should be awarded to a plaintiff past retirement age.
4. How pre-trial loss of earnings should be proved and quantified.

The court preferred Dr Lim's evidence, based on post-surgery imaging showing preserved joint space and on careful examination finding no joint line tenderness, that there was no cartilage damage and that the pain came from the implant and could be expected to resolve after its removal and rehabilitation. The risk of symptomatic osteoarthritis was low. Awards drew on earlier cases and the 2010 Guidelines, with uplifts for purchasing power and discounts for overlapping foot injuries and minor bruises.

The court accepted that symptoms of a head injury may surface months later and noted the hospital's referral to a neuroscience institute, so it found a head injury occurred. But it did not accept her account of complaining of headaches at the community hospital, and found the symptoms had resolved: her own affidavit said they went away, her change of evidence at trial came only after prompting, and Dr Hwang's view of permanence relied on unverified complaints.

On earning capacity, her 2017 CPF records showed she found steady work, so she remained employable, but awards for plaintiffs past retirement age in physical jobs tend to be modest. For pre-trial earnings, the court did not accept that she had been employed at the wanton shop, since no contract existed and the claimed industry practice was unproved, but found she would have found other work. It used a monthly figure of $950 across defined periods and declined any award after June 2020, which had not been claimed. Two medical items unrelated to the accident were deducted.

The court allowed the plaintiff's claims in part and assessed damages at $56,350 on a 100% basis: $11,500 for the knee, $6,000 for the feet, $4,000 for scars, $3,000 for PTSD, $3,000 for the head injury, $5,000 for loss of earning capacity, $14,021.51 for pre-trial loss of earnings, $4,000 for future medical expenses, $380 for transport and $5,448.94 for medical expenses. Submissions on interest and costs were directed.