IN THE FEDERAL COURT

CIVIL APPEAL

BETWEEN

SURIATI - APPELLANT

AND

JEFFRY - RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT’S BUNDLE OF AUTHORITY

COUNSELS:

(SENIOR)

(JUNIOR)

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

THE COURT OF APPEAL

SURIATI V. JEFFRY

Suriati, then aged 19 years old was walking side with her friends, along Jalan Taiping with

the intention of boarding a bus on the other side of the road. Suddenly, she was collided into

from the rear by Jeffry who was riding a Vespa motor scooter. This resulted in a severe head

and back injury for Suriati.

An action was brought by Suriati against Jeffry for negligence. Compensation was claimed

for the personal injuries that she had suffered.

Jeffry argued that he was proceeding along the road in a normal manner at a reasonable speed

when he noticed three girls standing on the grass verge to his right about four electric poles

away. He had slowed down whilst approaching a bend and was about 6ft from them, when

one of the girls dashed across the road into his path with her arms out-stretched and flapping

in the air like the wings of bird leaving him no opportunity of avoiding a collision. As a

result, Suriati fell on her back with her head coming to a rest near the central white line.

Jeffry too fell and his scooter came to a rest on his right-hand side of the road.

At first instance, the claim was dismissed. Suffian J, after weighing the evidence and

credibility of both parties accepted Jeffrey’s testimony and believed that the plaintiff was

actually to be blamed for the accident. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed

although Suriati was granted leave to appeal to the Federal Court on the following grounds:

1. The question of contributory negligence on the part of Jeffry should be

considered. If he was driving vigilantly and keep a proper look out, he would not

have been taken by surprise and be able to avoid the collision.

2. A partial amount of the compensation is to be paid by Jeffry by reason of

contributory negligence.

OUTLINE OF SUBMISSION

SENIOR COUNSEL

ISSUE:

Whether the question of contributory negligence on the part of Jeffry should be

considered?

No, it is because there is no question of contribution on negligence on the part of

Jeffry.

BASIS:

Elements of contributory negligence:

a) The plaintiff is not required to have a duty of care to the defendant. The duty

of care is upon himself to act reasonably so as to avoid damage to himself; and

b) The plaintiff has ‘breached’ this duty of care by behaving unreasonably; and

c) The act or omission must be the cause of his injury, which must be of a type

reasonably foreseeable from his act or omission.

Highway Code

STATUTE:

1. s 68(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987

2. Road Transport Rules

CASE:

1. Thong Hon Fah v Vikneswaran A/L Thanapalan [2001] MLJU 754

TREATISE:

1. Norchaya Talib (2003) Law of Torts in Malaysia, Petaling Jaya: Sweet &

Maxwell Asia

JUNIOR COUNSEL

ISSUE:

Whether Jeffry should pay a partial amount of compensation by reason of

contributory negligence?

No, Jeffry should not pay a partial amount of compensation by reason of

contributory negligence.

BASIS:

There is no contributory negligence on the part of Jeffry therefore he is not

entitled to pay a partial amount of compensation towards Suriati.

STATUTE:

1. s 12(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956

CASE:

1. Hamizan bin Abdul Hamid v Wong Kok Keong & Anor [1994] 3 MLJ 630

2. Tominam bte. Tukimin v Toh Kai Chup [1985] 2 MLJ 345

TREATISE:

1. Lee Mei Pheng (2005) General Principles of Malaysian Law, Shah Alam:

Oxford Fajar

2. RK Nathan (1999) Nathan on Negligence, Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Law

Journal

PRAYERS

I, on behalf of the Respondent would like to seek from the Court:-

1. There is no question of contributory negligence on the part of the Respondent

because of:-

a) The test for contributory negligence on the part of the respondent

b) The appellant had shown disregard for her own safety by being unaware of

the approach vehicle

c) It is impossible to avoid any such collision since the distance between the

appellant and the respondent is too close

d) The accident was caused solely by negligence of the appellant, there being

no contributory negligence on the part of the respondent

e) Thus, no partial amount of the compensation is to be paid by respondent

by reason of contributory negligence

Thereby, I pray for this honorable Court to sustain the decision made by the trial Court, the

appeal should be dismissed.

Therefore, I rest my case.