Car driver who caused bus to brake abruptly, injuring passenger, ordered to pay S$78,000

SINGAPORE: A man injured his lower back, spine and shoulder when he was flung to the floor of a public bus which braked when a car cut into its lane.

He sued the car driver for negligence and was awarded damages of S$78,444 (US$58,600), according to a judgment made available on Wednesday (Nov 13).

The claimant, Mr Tan Yu Hong, was on the bus in September 2019 when the car driver, Mr Lek Meng Peau, abruptly encroached into the lane of the bus.

The bus driver braked suddenly, causing Mr Tan to be flung to the floor. 

Mr Tan suffered injuries to his lower back, cervical spine and left shoulder. While the pain in his back and spine went away after treatment, the pain and discomfort in his left shoulder persisted.

He had suffered a tear in the tissue around the shoulder socket and a paralabral cyst, or swelling around the socket of the shoulder joint.

Mr Tan then sued Mr Lek for damages such as future medical expenses for his shoulder surgery and loss of income.

Before the trial began, both sides reached an agreement on several issues, including that Mr Lek was 90 per cent responsible for the accident, and that he had breached his duty of care. 

District Judge Samuel Wee said the crux of the issue was whether Mr Tan should be entitled to future medical expenses surrounding his shoulder injury, as he had deferred surgery and was hesitant to undergo it.

This was because he was concerned about a possible adverse reaction to the anaesthesia required, as he had suffered a bad reaction to it in other treatments linked to the accident, being unable to move the muscles below his neck.

Mr Tan sought S$105,500 for future medical expenses if he underwent the shoulder surgery should his condition worsen.

Mr Lek’s lawyers argued that Mr Tan should not be awarded the sum for future medical expenses, because of the “low possibility” that he would undergo the surgery.

Medical experts from both men had agreed that Mr Tan’s current condition was enough to require surgery, but that it could also possibly be deferred while taking a more conservative option of monitoring the size and growth of his shoulder cyst with regular MRI scans.

Judge Wee found that evidence from medical experts had shown that the cyst had grown over time and continued to pose a risk of growing bigger. There was also a possibility that Mr Tan could lose the range of motion and sensation in his left arm.

He thus found that there was “an appreciable risk” that Mr Tan would undergo the surgery and awarded S$45,000 for future expenses for it.

He declined to award a further S$50,000 as “a buffer”, as requested by Mr Tan if the surgery became complicated, saying there was insufficient evidence to support this.

Mr Tan also claimed S$20,000 for loss of earning capacity for four months, the estimated period that he would not be able to work after undergoing the surgery.

This was based on a monthly income of S$5,000. Mr Tan’s occupation was not detailed in the judgment, but he sought the sum on the basis that he was unable to lift heavy items or “climb cat-ladders that are too high in his job” due to his injuries.

Judge Wee rejected this claim as Mr Tan did not show that there was a substantial or real risk that he could lose his present job at some time before the end of his working life, and that he would be at a disadvantage in the open employment market because of his injuries.

The judge calculated the total amount of damages on a 100 per cent basis, including other components, to be S$87,160. Since the parties had agreed that Mr Lek was 90 per cent responsible, the amount was adjusted to S$78,444.

Mr Lek will also have to pay S$14,000 in costs to Mr Tan.