Firm whose Van Injured Cabbie 'not liable'

[Mdm Tang]

Bros if the employee let his son drives and


the son got into accident then who is liable ???


.

Firm whose van injured cabbie 'not liable'
[2011] 29 Jan​

Title: Firm whose van injured cabbie 'not liable'



Legal News Archive


SINGAPORE - If an employee drives a company vehicle outside of office hours for personal use and gets into a car accident, should the employer also be held liable for the offence?

The answer on Friday by High Court judge Kan Ting Chiu was a "no" - reversing a decision made by the lower courts in September last year.

On October 24, 2006, Mr Chua Meng Hwee, a delivery driver for Advance Industry Technology, was driving a company van along Yuan Ching Road at around 3.19am when he crashed into a taxi.

Mr Chua died from his injuries in hospital. An autopsy report showed that his blood alcohol level - 306mg per 100ml of blood - was more than three times the legal limit of 80mg.

The taxi driver, Mr Chiang Choong Loong, was hospitalised for more than three weeks for head injuries and a shoulder fracture.

Mr Chiang, who is now unemployed, sued the estate of Mr Chua and Advance Industry. Mr Chiang's lawyer Ching Kim Chuah had argued that the company had allowed Mr Chua free use of the van - "a potentially lethal machine", in the lawyer's words - and was under a duty to ask whether its employee would handle the vehicle responsibly.

Last year, District Judge Loo Ngan Chor ruled that the estate of Mr Chua and Advance Industry Technology should jointly pay 100 per cent of the damages suffered by Mr Chiang.

On Friday, the company appealed against the decision. Its lawyer Bhaskaran Sivasamy argued that, while the employment has created an opportunity for the commission of an offence, it does not mean liability on the employer. The lawyer said: "Otherwise employers' liability for employees' tort will be limitless."




.

 

[silverfox@]

It's a very vague line not only whether this employee is on official work. He was also drink driving and over the alcohol limit.

In many instances where involving drunk driving, claims cannot be made on the drunk driver as insurance does not cover drunk driving incidents.

So sometimes if its minor accident, have to get the driver's details and ask him go back first and claim the next day from him.

 

[zuoom]

normal companies should be clear cut.

usually working hours is from say 8am to 5pm. maybe add an hour or two for OT. in those time, it will be official work. any time after will not be considered official work.

i think there was a comparison to taxi drivers n company. would the taxi company pay if their driver crash into someone? say when the taxi driver is going on off shift?

 

[Mdm Tang]

tks. vans , lorries and the likes are not safe to be near to.

 

[silverfox@]

normal companies should be clear cut.

usually working hours is from say 8am to 5pm. maybe add an hour or two for OT. in those time, it will be official work. any time after will not be considered official work.

i think there was a comparison to taxi drivers n company. would the taxi company pay if their driver crash into someone? say when the taxi driver is going on off shift?

taxi drivers considered self employed. Insurance companies will cover. But hor in most cases of such accidents, the taxi drivers deposit may be deducted or offset for claims.

 

[silverfox@]

tks. vans , lorries and the likes are not safe to be near to.

And also foreign registered vehicles, especially malaysia number plated vehicles.

Insurance companies are not willing to help Singapore car owners pursue claims against foreign vehicles. And I am seriously wondering why till today ICA never stopped foreign vehicles from entering Singapore if they do not bring their insurance papers.

Yes its true. Ever kenna buang by a malaysian van, he only have $20 with him and no insurance papers. Even LTA vehicle come also tell me to ownself settle myself. Call insurance and workshops, no one interested to help you, unless you willing to claim your own insurance first. All these people are fuckin crooks.

The last time just F my insurance agent tell him that if all their recommended workshops no one willing to help, I just buy from others. Before accident, everything all can. After accident, suddenly become mission impossible.

Next time, if involve accident with malaysian vehicle, I sure demand on the spot settlement or I call police and ambulance for neck injuries. Once got injury case, not easy for malaysian vehicles to siam already.

 

[Mdm Tang]

.



Mr Chiang, who is now unemployed, sued the estate of Mr Chua and Advance Industry. Mr Chiang's lawyer Ching Kim Chuah had argued that the company had allowed Mr Chua free use of the van - "a potentially lethal machine", in the lawyer's words - and was under a duty to ask whether its employee would handle the vehicle responsibly.



the taxi company should assist mr chiang to appeal also.


and get a new lawyer .


i suggest lee n lee

 

[silverfox@]

.



Mr Chiang, who is now unemployed, sued the estate of Mr Chua and Advance Industry. Mr Chiang's lawyer Ching Kim Chuah had argued that the company had allowed Mr Chua free use of the van - "a potentially lethal machine", in the lawyer's words - and was under a duty to ask whether its employee would handle the vehicle responsibly.



the taxi company should assist mr chiang to appeal also.


and get a new lawyer .


i suggest lee n lee

Can re-appeal from an appeal where the decision was reversed?

 

[Mdm Tang]

.

.....Next time, if involve accident with malaysian vehicle, I sure demand on the spot settlement or I call police and ambulance for neck injuries. Once got injury case, not easy for malaysian vehicles to siam already.

.


also , remember to take a picture of the driver face

, front view ...



my friend got hit by a car , the driver with

the same id turn up in court . id same but


at that time of accident the driver was a different person


but got the original driver id on hand ...



.

 

[Mdm Tang]

.


Can re-appeal from an appeal where the decision was reversed?



i think can try ...

.

Five years that I will never get back ...


Despite lengthy battle to clear his name, veteran lawyer says it proves trust in legal system here well-placed

05:56 AM Nov 26, 2010

by Teo Xuanwei


IT WAS a court battle that lasted five long years and cost some $1 million in legal fees.

But when the Court of Appeal finally acquitted Mr Bachoo Mohan Singh, 63, in July of any wrongdoing in a property "cash back" scam, the emotion that engulfed the veteran lawyer was not one of relief. Instead, it was an overwhelming feeling of anger.

He was angry that he had to wage such a long legal battle to prove his innocence and that for five years he had to constantly reassure his family as the threat of jail time hung over him.

But most of all, Mr Singh was angry about the time he had lost.

Speaking to MediaCorp in his office, he said: "If I was made of lesser stuff, I'd say 'Thank God, I'm finally vindicated. Those were five very good years of my professional life that I'll never get back." Initially convicted by a lower court of abetting a client to file a false claim, the lawyer of 36 years' standing had to excuse himself from many cases as he wanted to spare his clients "the embarrassment of being represented by a convicted lawyer".

Mr Singh then turned to cases in Australia - where his immediate family resides - but always with an eye that he might be jailed at any moment.

Although the courts have now cleared his name, he says that trying to regain those lost years is out of his hands. "I'm older, slower, and can't work as hard and as long as I could."

"I still feel angry that they chose to make me a guinea pig. I couldn't understand why they picked someone who has been a lawyer for 30-odd years and never had a blemish on his record," he added.

Recalling the anguish he endured during his long-drawn legal tussle, Mr Singh said there was more than once when all seemed lost.

First, the district court judge who convicted Mr Singh after a trial that lasted more than a year also made a finding that he was dishonest - thereby effectively ending his legal career here or anywhere else. Then, not only did he fail in his appeal against his conviction in a High Court, he also failed to get permission to bring the matter to the Court of Appeal.

Even senior lawyers, who were advising him then, said there seemed to be no other legal recourse for him: He had to go to prison for one month.

But that did not faze him. He set about preparing himself mentally. "I had all the great works ready to bring to prison with me, you know, the complete works of Shakespeare, Tolstoy and all," he quipped. "What can 30 days in prison do to me? It's nothing, I've seen so much, it's just 30 days to read, a luxury that I haven't had in a long time."

But deep down Mr Singh never allowed any of these twists and turns in his legal battle to break him.

He did not change his lifestyle - he continued having dinner with his friends and family in public places and playing golf with his mates.

But some "lesser friends", as he described them, did start to shun him.

"I was too angry to be bothered... I was too involved in my determination to win to bother about what was happening," he said.

"But you know, if I'd not been a lawyer, I'd have been finished. Because if my lawyers told me there's no more appeal, I'd say 'do not appeal'."

On a hunch, Mr Singh went to the National Archives and British Library in London to look for legal documents that would support his case.

And "perhaps by some divine intervention", he got lucky and found a document entitled "A Penal Code" written by the Indian Law Commissioners in 1837, which was the source of the Singapore criminal law. It bolstered his stand all along that he was merely acting on his client's instructions and was simply fighting a case of a breach of contract.

He said: "It's been proven that my trust in the legal system is well-placed and that justice will be done in Singapore."

The five-year court battle
by Teo Xuanwei
- Sept 2003: Taxi driver Koh Sia Kang and his wife Kang Siew Guek agreed to sell their Redhill flat to buyers Francis Hong Swee Kim and Elizabeth Bong for $390,000. The property agents were Kereen Teo Pei Pei and Tony Hon Nam Tung. The sellers were represented by lawyers Rayney Wong and Eric Ng. The buyers were represented by lawyer Ong Bee Lay.


- Jan 2004: The seller, Mr Koh, felt uneasy about the deal after he saw that the option to purchase document listed his flat's selling price as $490,000. Mr Koh went to Mr Bachoo Mohan Singh and lodged complaints with the Police, CPIB, HDB, IRAS, LawSoc and the Registrar of Moneylenders. The buyers pulled out.


- Apr 2004: Mr Singh filed a writ of summons in the Subordinate Courts against the buyers for breach of contract after his client sells flat for $380,000, which was $110,000 less than the price stated in the option.


- Jan 2005: Property agent Teo became the first to be convicted in a "cash back" deal. She was fined $8,000 for trying to cheat DBS Bank by inflating the price of Mr Koh's flat and for swearing a false statutory declaration. In September 2005, the other agent Tony Ho Nam Tung was convicted of trying to cheat the DBS Bank and fined $8,000.


- Oct 2005: Mr Singh is charged with helping Mr Koh make a false claim to the court over the price of the flat in the lawsuit.


- June 2007: Mr Singh is found guilty of helping Mr Koh make a false claim and sentenced to three months' jail in September. Mr Singh appeals the sentence.


- Jan 2009: Mr Singh fails in his appeal but the High Court reduces his sentence to one month's jail and a $10,000 fine.


- Apr 2009: The High Court dismisses Mr Singh's application to bring his case to the Court of Appeal but allows him to file an application directly.


- July 2010: The Court of Appeal, in a 2 to 1 ruling, acquits Mr Singh.

URL http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC101126-0000076/Five-years-that-I-will-never-get-back-,,,

.

 

[Mdm Tang]

the 3 wise men can help the taxi driver

 

[Mdm Tang]

and can also help the decesaed family

 

[Mdm Tang]

.


On Friday, the company appealed against the decision. Its lawyer Bhaskaran Sivasamy argued that, while the employment has created an opportunity for the commission of an offence, it does not mean liability on the employer. The lawyer said: "Otherwise employers' liability for employees' tort will be limitless."


.


the news report did not mention :


a) the taxi company

b) the cab company's insurer and

c) the law firm/lawyer representing the cab co and
mr chiang ...