Pedestrian vs vehicle — how courts split blame
2 reported judgments · 1 court · how Singapore courts apportion liability
Across 2 reported Singapore judgments we analysed
In the Singapore pedestrian-vs-vehicle judgments in this corpus, the driver/rider bore the larger share of liability, but a pedestrian who created or stood in danger has been found contributorily negligent: in one case the court apportioned 75% to the motorcyclist and 25% to the pedestrian, while in another the driver was held fully liable with no contributory negligence.
How do Singapore courts split blame in pedestrian vs vehicle — how courts split blame?
Across 2 grounded judgment(s) the claimant's share ranged from 0% to 25%. The breakdown below reports each decided judgment — the accident facts, what the court held on liability, and the verbatim line in which the court fixed the split.
How Singapore courts split blame in this scenario. Each row is the apportionment the court fixed in that judgment; the claimant/defendant percentages are the shares the court stated.
| Judgment | Apportionment (as decided) | Source cases |
|---|---|---|
[2025] SGHC 254 · SGHC Claimant / injured party: 25% · Defendant / tortfeasor: 75%. | Motorcyclist (defendant) 75% / Pedestrian (claimant) 25% | |
[2025] SGHC 111 · SGHC Claimant / injured party: 0% · Defendant / tortfeasor: 100%. | Driver (defendant) 100% liable / Pedestrian (claimant) 0% — no contributory negligence |
About this data — This scenario is grounded in 2 Singapore judgment(s) in our corpus (of which 1 applied a reduction and 1 found no contributory negligence) — fewer than three fully-reasoned apportionment decisions — so the figures below report those specific outcomes rather than an established range.
What did the courts decide?
What happened: A motorcyclist on the AYE expressway collided with a pedestrian who was standing near the leftmost lane to redirect traffic around a stationary lorry that had a punctured tyre.
What the court decided: On appeal the High Court held the District Judge had erred in fixing the pedestrian's share at only 10% and increased it to 25%, while the motorcyclist bore primary responsibility for failing to keep a safe following distance and proper lookout. Weighing relative causative potency and blameworthiness, the court apportioned liability 75:25.
“Accordingly, I allow HC/DCA 12/2025 and apportion responsibility for the accident at 75% to the Appellant and 25% to the Respondent.” — [2025] SGHC 254
What happened: A pedestrian crossing via a designated pavement was struck by a car that had crossed onto the wrong side of the road.
What the court decided: The court found the driver had breached his duty of care and caused the accident, and expressly held there was no contributory negligence on the pedestrian's part, entering interlocutory judgment on the basis that the driver was fully liable.
“I further find that there was no contributory negligence on Ms Booi’s part. I thus order interlocutory judgment to be entered for Ms Booi on the basis that Mr Lee is fully liable for the accident.” — [2025] SGHC 111
Related
Source judgments
Every figure on this page is drawn from a reported Singapore judgment. The cases below are the primary sources; each links to its full judgment.
- [2025] SGHC 254 — Jeff Lim Wai Kit v Arumugam Alamuthu · primary source
- [2025] SGHC 111 — Diana Booi Yee Tze v Anthony Lee Zhen Lin · primary source
Compiled by the SG Case Law editorial team from primary sources — the judgments themselves and Singapore Statutes Online (sso.agc.gov.sg). · Updated 25 June 2026 · How we compile this
Last updated .