Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
TMA01
Write a case review of Ng Weng Cheong v Soh Oh Loo & Anor [1993]
SGCA 22, responding to the facts of the case and explaining what you
of Appeal on two issues. The first issue was whether or not the first respondent had breached
the duty of care when approaching a pedestrian crossing. The second issue was on
contributorily negligence by the appellant. The Court of Appeals final decision was different
to that of the High Court and there were notably quite a few key issues that the Court of
Appeal addressed.
At first, the High Court had deemed that the first respondent was not negligent and did not
breach the duty of care based on the fact that the appellant had been crossing when the light
was red. As such, it was right for him to make the assumption that no one would be on the
pedestrian crossing, allowing him to continue driving. However, the appellant had appealed
on the basis that the first respondent should have taken caution when approaching a
pedestrian crossing regardless if the appellant was crossing when the red light was on. There
was no indication that the first respondent had slowed down when nearing the pedestrian
crossing. Neither did he, when he noticed his view was blocked, take into consideration that
there might be someone on the pedestrian crossing. In any case, it was the first respondents
duty under r 5 and r 7 to act prudently while driving, especially when approaching pedestrian
crossings and junctions, and that duty is not affected by the actions of the pedestrian, even if
the pedestrian was negligent. The Court of Appeal took on this view and respectfully Commented [DK1]: To take on something is to challenge
something.
disagreed with the High Court and the Judicial Commissioners decision. While the High Court
relieved the first respondents duty of r 5 and r 7, the Court of Appeal was of the view that it
was wrong of the first respondent to assume that there would be no one on the crossing. As
contributory negligence by the appellant. It was found and the Judicial Commissioner agreed
with the finding that the appellant had crossed when the light was red. Furthermore, the
appellant did not heed to the red light, neither did he stop crossing when other vehicles were
approaching and had come to a stop. Taking into consideration the number of concerns that
had occurred before the accident to which the appellant had chosen not to give care to, the
Court of Appeal found the appellant to be contributorily negligent. In addition, while the
Upson case was referred to, where the apportion of blame was 50:50, the judgment was
made under English laws where it is not an offence to jaywalk, and therefore it would be
equally or more so the drivers fault in London than in Singapore, where jaywalking is an
offence. Therefore, the Court of Appeal apportioned the blame 70% to 30% in favor of the