SINGAPORE: A passenger in a Grab car sued the driver over injuries he sustained in an accident in 2021, when the driver ran a red light and hit another vehicle.
However, during the first stage of the trial determining liability, the judge found that the passenger bore 20 per cent of the fault for his injuries because he failed to wear a seat belt, "the most basic of precautions to ensure his own safety on the road".
District Judge Tay Jingxi referred to a case from as early as 1975, which stated that a "prudent man" should always wear a seat belt "if he is wise".
The passenger, Mr Baek Jongwoo, filed an appeal against the finding that he was 20 per cent liable.
Mr Baek was in the rear passenger seat of Mr John Susaretnam's car at around 8pm on May 12, 2021.
Mr John drove through a red light and collided with another vehicle at the junction along Anson Road and Maxwell Road.
Mr Baek suffered unspecified injuries in the accident and sued Mr John, seeking a finding that he bore no contributory negligence, while the driver was 100 per cent liable for the accident and injuries.
Mr Baek, who was represented by lawyer Winston Low from Winston Low and Partners, said in his affidavit that Mr John drove off before giving him an opportunity to fasten his seatbelt.
He wrote that it took less than a minute for Mr John to go from the pick-up location to the point of the collision, which was not enough time for him to fasten his seatbelt.
He also wrote that he was carrying a backpack and an iPad and was about to buckle the belt when the collision occurred.
During the trial, Mr Baek testified that he greeted Mr John after boarding his car and placed his belongings to one side. He said that he might also have been checking his phone to see the licence plate number of Mr John's vehicle.
He added that 10 to 20 seconds elapsed from the time he entered the car to the time he tried to put on his seat belt.
When cross-examined about the discrepancy between the time he stated at trial and the time he stated in his affidavit, Mr Baek stuck to the time of 10 to 20 seconds.
The judge said that Mr Baek ultimately provided "little, if any, further explanation" as to why a period of 20 seconds was not enough for him to fasten his seat belt.
Mr John was defended by Mr Richard Tan Seng Chew and Ms Cynthiya C Charles Christy from law firm Tan Chin Hoe & Co.
He admitted that he had driven through the red light but was unable to recall whether he had reminded Mr Baek to fasten his seat belt or whether he had even done so.
The court noted that it was beyond dispute that Mr John, as a professional Grabcar driver, owed his passengers a duty of care to drive in a manner that would not expose them to harm.
However, the judge was unable to find that Mr John was driving at a "fast speed" or above the limit as asserted by Mr Baek based on the evidence, including video footage.
Nonetheless, she found that Mr John had breached his duty of care to Mr Baek by:
Judge Tay then turned to the question of whether Mr Baek should bear some responsibility for his injuries.
She noted that his "sole justification" for not wearing a seat belt was his claim that he did not have enough time to do so.
However, she found that the amount of time he purportedly had to fasten the seat belt was irrelevant to the analysis.
"On a proper reading of the relevant statutory provisions, Mr Baek's obligation to fasten his seat belt as a passenger arose before Mr John's car moved off," she said.
"His omission to fasten his seatbelt at that point amounted to contributory negligence because he had at that point already failed to take reasonable care for his own safety."
The judge referred to a rule in the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Wearing of Seat Belts) Rules 2011, which states that the driver and every passenger of a motor vehicle shall wear a seat belt or lap belt, to provide restraint for the body of the wearer in the event of an accident.
She noted that the scope of this rule is not limited to moving vehicles, since being on the road by itself is an "inherently dangerous activity" because a person may not act carelessly on the road, but other road users may.
"A prudent adult passenger (such as Mr Baek) ought reasonably to foresee such risks," Judge Tay said. "In my judgment, he must therefore fasten his seat belt upon entering a vehicle and ensure that he has done so before the vehicle moves off. Only then can such a passenger fulfil the duty he owes to himself to take reasonable care for his own safety on the road."
Another rule states that the driver must ensure that all his passengers comply with the seat belt rule. However, the judge said that a driver can realistically and safely only do so before driving off, and not while driving.
This is to avoid distractions, since being on the road already requires a driver to multitask.
"He cannot afford to be distracted by having to simultaneously ensure that his passengers have fastened their seat belts," the judge said, adding that this difficulty is heightened for backseat passengers.
She also noted that even if the driver were to give a verbal reminder to passengers, the reminder by itself does not ensure that his passengers comply.
She said that "the most logical and effectual way for a driver to manage such non-compliant passengers while safeguarding their safety on the road is not to move off until everyone in the vehicle has fastened their seatbelts".
"This approach also provides the driver with practical avenues to secure compliance; for example, fastening the seat belt of a front-seat passenger who is known to him (such as a family member), or refusing to convey a passenger who declines to comply," she added.
Mr Baek argued that he would have suffered the same injuries even if he had fastened his seat belt.
He testified that he had been thrown both "right and front" on impact – to the front from the force of the collision, and to the right when the left rear airbag was activated and pushed him to the right.
This movement caused him to hit his head on the central storage compartment located between the two front seats of the car.
Judge Tay said Mr Baek’s assertion that he would have suffered the same injuries even if belted "cannot stand up to scrutiny".
There would have been a "significantly reduced impact" between Mr Baek's head and the central storage compartment if the seat belt had restrained his body.
"In fact, I have my doubts as to whether his head could have even reached the centre storage compartment had his body been properly restrained by the seat belt," she added.
"In any event, a smaller or non-existent impact between his head and the storage compartment would in all likelihood have led to less severe injuries than those he sustained."
She found that Mr Baek's failure to belt up attracted "a degree of moral blameworthiness".
During the trial, Mr Baek and his lawyer conducted an "experiment" that showed Mr Baek required only five seconds to greet an imaginary driver and put his belongings to the side.
The judge said she was therefore unable to see why he needed 10 to 20 seconds merely to place his belongings aside.
She noted that Mr Baek should bear 20 per cent of the fault for his injuries regardless of whether Mr John had fulfilled his own duty as a driver to ensure his passenger had put on the seat belt.
She said the driver's breach neither absolved nor mitigated Mr Baek's own blameworthiness.
"The fastening of one's seatbelt is such a basic and instinctive rule of the road that any adult passenger should know it without being told," she added.
In conclusion, the judge found that Mr John bore greater responsibility for Mr Baek's injuries.
The driver was "more morally blameworthy" for running the red light and failing to give way to straight-going vehicles on his right, she said.
"It would be immediately obvious to a reasonable driver – especially one who drives for a living – that such an action posed a grave danger not only to himself and his passenger, but also to the vehicles on his right and the pedestrians in the vicinity at the material time," she continued.
"Essentially, Mr John's actions put more people at risk of harm, while Mr Baek's omission only put himself at risk of harm."
She said that a passenger may, in many instances, reach his destination safely even if he "unwisely fails to wear a seat belt".
"The present case was not such an instance. While the injuries Mr Baek suffered were unfortunate, part of the blame falls squarely on his shoulders given his failure to take the most basic of precautions to ensure his own safety on the road," she said.
Damages will be determined at a later stage.
Continue reading...
However, during the first stage of the trial determining liability, the judge found that the passenger bore 20 per cent of the fault for his injuries because he failed to wear a seat belt, "the most basic of precautions to ensure his own safety on the road".
District Judge Tay Jingxi referred to a case from as early as 1975, which stated that a "prudent man" should always wear a seat belt "if he is wise".
The passenger, Mr Baek Jongwoo, filed an appeal against the finding that he was 20 per cent liable.
THE CASE
Mr Baek was in the rear passenger seat of Mr John Susaretnam's car at around 8pm on May 12, 2021.
Mr John drove through a red light and collided with another vehicle at the junction along Anson Road and Maxwell Road.
Mr Baek suffered unspecified injuries in the accident and sued Mr John, seeking a finding that he bore no contributory negligence, while the driver was 100 per cent liable for the accident and injuries.
Mr Baek, who was represented by lawyer Winston Low from Winston Low and Partners, said in his affidavit that Mr John drove off before giving him an opportunity to fasten his seatbelt.
He wrote that it took less than a minute for Mr John to go from the pick-up location to the point of the collision, which was not enough time for him to fasten his seatbelt.
He also wrote that he was carrying a backpack and an iPad and was about to buckle the belt when the collision occurred.
During the trial, Mr Baek testified that he greeted Mr John after boarding his car and placed his belongings to one side. He said that he might also have been checking his phone to see the licence plate number of Mr John's vehicle.
He added that 10 to 20 seconds elapsed from the time he entered the car to the time he tried to put on his seat belt.
When cross-examined about the discrepancy between the time he stated at trial and the time he stated in his affidavit, Mr Baek stuck to the time of 10 to 20 seconds.
The judge said that Mr Baek ultimately provided "little, if any, further explanation" as to why a period of 20 seconds was not enough for him to fasten his seat belt.
Mr John was defended by Mr Richard Tan Seng Chew and Ms Cynthiya C Charles Christy from law firm Tan Chin Hoe & Co.
He admitted that he had driven through the red light but was unable to recall whether he had reminded Mr Baek to fasten his seat belt or whether he had even done so.
BREACHES BY DRIVER
The court noted that it was beyond dispute that Mr John, as a professional Grabcar driver, owed his passengers a duty of care to drive in a manner that would not expose them to harm.
However, the judge was unable to find that Mr John was driving at a "fast speed" or above the limit as asserted by Mr Baek based on the evidence, including video footage.
Nonetheless, she found that Mr John had breached his duty of care to Mr Baek by:
- Failing to heed the red traffic light signal
- Failing to give way to the other vehicle that had the right of way
- Failing to avoid the collision and driving into the front passenger side of the other vehicle
Judge Tay then turned to the question of whether Mr Baek should bear some responsibility for his injuries.
She noted that his "sole justification" for not wearing a seat belt was his claim that he did not have enough time to do so.
However, she found that the amount of time he purportedly had to fasten the seat belt was irrelevant to the analysis.
"On a proper reading of the relevant statutory provisions, Mr Baek's obligation to fasten his seat belt as a passenger arose before Mr John's car moved off," she said.
"His omission to fasten his seatbelt at that point amounted to contributory negligence because he had at that point already failed to take reasonable care for his own safety."
THE SEAT BELT RULE
The judge referred to a rule in the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Wearing of Seat Belts) Rules 2011, which states that the driver and every passenger of a motor vehicle shall wear a seat belt or lap belt, to provide restraint for the body of the wearer in the event of an accident.
She noted that the scope of this rule is not limited to moving vehicles, since being on the road by itself is an "inherently dangerous activity" because a person may not act carelessly on the road, but other road users may.
"A prudent adult passenger (such as Mr Baek) ought reasonably to foresee such risks," Judge Tay said. "In my judgment, he must therefore fasten his seat belt upon entering a vehicle and ensure that he has done so before the vehicle moves off. Only then can such a passenger fulfil the duty he owes to himself to take reasonable care for his own safety on the road."
Another rule states that the driver must ensure that all his passengers comply with the seat belt rule. However, the judge said that a driver can realistically and safely only do so before driving off, and not while driving.
This is to avoid distractions, since being on the road already requires a driver to multitask.
"He cannot afford to be distracted by having to simultaneously ensure that his passengers have fastened their seat belts," the judge said, adding that this difficulty is heightened for backseat passengers.
She also noted that even if the driver were to give a verbal reminder to passengers, the reminder by itself does not ensure that his passengers comply.
She said that "the most logical and effectual way for a driver to manage such non-compliant passengers while safeguarding their safety on the road is not to move off until everyone in the vehicle has fastened their seatbelts".
"This approach also provides the driver with practical avenues to secure compliance; for example, fastening the seat belt of a front-seat passenger who is known to him (such as a family member), or refusing to convey a passenger who declines to comply," she added.
INJURIES WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME WITH BELT: PASSENGER
Mr Baek argued that he would have suffered the same injuries even if he had fastened his seat belt.
He testified that he had been thrown both "right and front" on impact – to the front from the force of the collision, and to the right when the left rear airbag was activated and pushed him to the right.
This movement caused him to hit his head on the central storage compartment located between the two front seats of the car.
Judge Tay said Mr Baek’s assertion that he would have suffered the same injuries even if belted "cannot stand up to scrutiny".
There would have been a "significantly reduced impact" between Mr Baek's head and the central storage compartment if the seat belt had restrained his body.
"In fact, I have my doubts as to whether his head could have even reached the centre storage compartment had his body been properly restrained by the seat belt," she added.
"In any event, a smaller or non-existent impact between his head and the storage compartment would in all likelihood have led to less severe injuries than those he sustained."
She found that Mr Baek's failure to belt up attracted "a degree of moral blameworthiness".
During the trial, Mr Baek and his lawyer conducted an "experiment" that showed Mr Baek required only five seconds to greet an imaginary driver and put his belongings to the side.
The judge said she was therefore unable to see why he needed 10 to 20 seconds merely to place his belongings aside.
She noted that Mr Baek should bear 20 per cent of the fault for his injuries regardless of whether Mr John had fulfilled his own duty as a driver to ensure his passenger had put on the seat belt.
She said the driver's breach neither absolved nor mitigated Mr Baek's own blameworthiness.
"The fastening of one's seatbelt is such a basic and instinctive rule of the road that any adult passenger should know it without being told," she added.
In conclusion, the judge found that Mr John bore greater responsibility for Mr Baek's injuries.
The driver was "more morally blameworthy" for running the red light and failing to give way to straight-going vehicles on his right, she said.
"It would be immediately obvious to a reasonable driver – especially one who drives for a living – that such an action posed a grave danger not only to himself and his passenger, but also to the vehicles on his right and the pedestrians in the vicinity at the material time," she continued.
"Essentially, Mr John's actions put more people at risk of harm, while Mr Baek's omission only put himself at risk of harm."
She said that a passenger may, in many instances, reach his destination safely even if he "unwisely fails to wear a seat belt".
"The present case was not such an instance. While the injuries Mr Baek suffered were unfortunate, part of the blame falls squarely on his shoulders given his failure to take the most basic of precautions to ensure his own safety on the road," she said.
Damages will be determined at a later stage.
Continue reading...