Rajina Sharma d/o Rajandran v Theyvasigamani s/o Periasamy and another

On 2 November 2016 Rajina Sharma, then a Senior Staff Sergeant in the Singapore Police Force, was riding pillion on a motorcycle ridden by her husband, Mr Theyvasigamani (Mr Mani), on the Central Expressway. A motorcyclist in front, the second defendant, skidded and fell; Mr Mani braked but crashed into the fallen motorcycle and she was thrown off. She suffered a very severe traumatic brain injury with right-sided weakness and permanent impairment of language and cognition, partial loss of vision, rib fractures, a shoulder fracture and various cuts and scars. She was hospitalised until 11 March 2017, is effectively wheelchair-bound, can say only one or two words, and needs a full-time caregiver. Her life expectancy was agreed to have fallen to 72.

She sued both motorcyclists in negligence in Suit No 994 of 2019, with Mr Mani acting as her litigation representative while also being the first defendant. A driver involved in an earlier collision nearby was joined as third party. Interlocutory judgment was entered by consent: Mr Mani bore 75% and the second defendant 25%, with the third party indemnifying Mr Mani for 10%. Mr Mani gave up his job to care for her. This judgment assessed damages.

1. What sum should be awarded for pain and suffering across her multiple injuries.
2. Whether an additional discount should be applied to future-loss awards calculated using the Singapore Actuarial Tables to account for vicissitudes other than mortality.
3. How her loss of future earnings and retirement benefits under the police INVEST Scheme should be assessed.
4. What should be awarded for future expenses, future caregiver costs and pre-trial losses.
5. Whether she could recover the value of care given by her husband when he was also a tortfeasor.

On pain and suffering, the judge applied the two-stage approach in Lua Bee Kiang, first valuing each injury and then checking the total against precedents. The brain injury was worse than in Muhammad Adam, where $185,000 was awarded, and the eye and facial nerve injuries were folded into that head because they flowed from it. The component total stood after comparison with older and more recent cases.

On the discount, the first defendant argued that because the Singapore Actuarial Tables, unlike the UK Ogden Tables, do not adjust for contingencies other than mortality, 15% should be taken off every future-loss award, relying on New South Wales, Irish and Hong Kong cases. The judge held there was no principled basis for this. A blanket cut would in effect rewrite the expert-derived multipliers when the review committee itself could not do so for lack of data; the foreign rates rested on different statutes and assumptions and risked double deduction; and judicial wisdom is not a licence to pluck a percentage from the air. Case-specific adjustments remain possible. For earnings, given her strong work record and secure job, the judge made only a modest adjustment by starting the multiplier a year later. For future expenses, which reflect her actual injured life, no discount was justified.

On earnings, the judge found she would have retired from the police at 58 and then worked in security until 65, staying at her rank but reaching the top of its salary scale on average across her service. Bonuses were taken from long-run averages and allowances included. On retirement benefits, the judge accepted the defence expert's projected annual return of 4.56% over the plaintiff's reliance on a historic 5.36% figure.

On care by the husband, the judge declined to follow Hunt v Severs and Gul Chandiram. In Singapore the claim is for the plaintiff's own loss, being the need for care. Care given by a family member out of affection or duty, rather than to discharge liability, is like a third party's benevolence, so there was no double compensation or circularity. Denying recovery would also discourage reliance on the best-placed carer and give insurers a windfall.

On the assessment, Teh Hwee Hwee J allowed the plaintiff's claim and awarded her damages of $3,378,231.99. The main items were $236,000 for pain and suffering, $1,961,016.44 for loss of future earnings, $296,375.58 for loss of retirement benefits, $400,848 for future caregiver expenses, $300,291.34 for pre-trial loss of earnings and $93,080 for the value of Mr Mani's care before trial. The judge declined the 15% across-the-board discount sought by the first defendant, and reserved interest and costs.