1 On 11 May 2023, at approximately 1230am, Wee Soon Wah (“Mr Wee”) was driving his taxi along the left most lane of Loyang Avenue whilst transporting his passenger Son Doeun (“Miss Son”). Around the same time, Syn Chevor Chee Meng Troy Anthony (“Mr Syn”) was driving against the flow of traffic, and under the influence of alcohol, along Loyang Avenue from the direction opposite to Mr Wee’s vehicle. Realising that he was driving against the flow of traffic, Mr Syn sought to exit Loyang Avenue by turning into Old Tampines Road. Whilst Mr Syn executed this turn, there was a collision between the vehicles driven by Mr Wee and Mr Syn.

2 Through DC/OC 538/2024, Mr Wee contends that Mr Syn was fully liable for the accident that took place and seeks damages. The latter concedes that he is liable but argues that the former was contributorily negligent. Mr Syn was sued by Ms Son for damages arising from the same accident in DC/OC 1089/2023 and through this third-party action Mr Syn seeks contribution from Mr Wee.

3  Loyang Avenue is an 8-lane dual carriageway, with 4 lanes facilitating traffic from each direction. Traffic traveling from opposing directions are separated by a concrete road divider. Traffic from Old Tampines Road joins Loyang Avenue via a discretionary left turn. Vehicles turning into Old Tampines Road from the opposing direction from which Mr Wee was travelling can do so via a signalised junction. These facts are significant, for reasons explained at [14] below.

4 Videographic evidence was furnished during the trial, and it reveals the following. Shortly before the collision – between the vehicles of Mr Wee and Mr Syn – Mr Wee was driving on Lane 4 of Loyang Avenue towards the junction of Old Tampines Road and Loyang Avenue. The traffic lights were green in his favour, and he saw a vehicle travel past the junction ahead of him. Two vehicles – travelling in the same direction as Mr Wee – remained stationary at the junction along lanes 1 and 2. The vehicle in lane 2 was a lorry which was significantly taller than a sedan. At the time Mr Wee noticed the stationary vehicles, the traffic lights had turned green in their (and his) favour for approximately 1-2 seconds. Shortly after Mr Wee drove past these two stationary vehicles his taxi collided with Mr Syn’s vehicle which had, by that time, travelled approximately 250 metres against the flow of traffic along lane 2 of Loyang Avenue.

5  The law on contributory negligence was stated in Ng Swee Eng (administrator of the estate of Tan Chee Wee, deceased) v Ang Oh Chuan [2002] SGHC 137 (at [60] to [61]):

6 Essentially, considering whether one is contributorily negligent is a fact-centric exercise which focuses on whether the party contributed to the injury by failing to take reasonable steps – given the circumstances – to prevent the injuries in question.

7 Mr Syn advances three main contentions as to why Mr Wee was contributorily negligent. ¹ First, Mr Wee failed to maintain a proper lookout for traffic ahead of him, thereby failing to notice Mr Syn’s vehicle. Second, Mr Wee failed to give way to Mr Wyn’s vehicle. Third, Mr Wee did not “take reasonable steps to avoid or mitigate the impact of the collision”. ² These three contentions were premised on the same substratum of facts, and they are discussed below.

8 Mr Syn contends that unusual circumstances existed which ought to have put Mr Wee on notice of anomalous road conditions ahead. The circumstances were as follows. Two vehicles remained stationary despite the traffic lights having turned green in their favour for approximately 1-2 seconds. In this regard, Mr Wee had witnessed the change in traffic lights from a distance of 50 to 100 meters from the junction.

9 Notwithstanding the unusual circumstances, Mr Wee failed to pay heed to road conditions ahead of him. Had he done so, he ought to have observed Mr Syn’s vehicle travelling from the opposing direction. In Mr Syn’s submissions, his vehicle would have been in plain sight of Mr Wee had the latter been observant as the vehicle’s headlights were switched on. ³

10 In light of Mr Wee’s failure to spot Mr Syn’s vehicle, the former failed to avert the collision by giving way to the latter’s vehicle. In addition, Mr Wee further contends that Mr Wee “took inadequate measures to avoid the [c]ollision”. ⁴ In this regard, Mr Syn contends that Mr Wee could have swerved to avoid the collision or mitigate its impact. ⁵ Instead of doing so, Mr Wee applied the brakes hard and flashed his headlights.

11 Before commencing my analysis on the issues raised, I state – at the outset – that the fact that Mr Syn, by driving whilst intoxicated and against the flow of traffic – had contravened the criminal law does not, ipso facto, preclude a finding that Mr Wee was contributorily negligent. The authorities cited by parties support this proposition. In addition, the right of way does not accord one a shield against a finding of contributory negligence. Erroneous driving is an ever-present risk, and if one does not act reasonably in reacting to such error – especially obvious ones – then he or she can expect to be found contributorily negligent. I turn now to my findings.

12 First, the conditions at the material time were not such that Mr Wee ought to have been put on alert that anomalous road conditions were ahead of him. Much was made by Mr Syn of the presence of two stationary vehicles at the material junction, notwithstanding that the traffic lights were green in their favour. However, the evidence of Mr Wee was that the lights had changed for approximately 1-2 seconds. Further, his evidence that it is not unusual for vehicles to move off shortly after the traffic lights have changed comports with common sense. Further, Mr Wee had witnessed a vehicle driving through the junction (in the lane he was travelling in) upon the traffic lights having turned green. These facts, combined with the absence of obvious peculiarities such as vehicles blaring their horns or having their hazard lights on, would not have given rise to an apprehension that something was amiss.

13 Second, in my view, Mr Syn’s conduct was so remote that a reasonable driver – barring obvious circumstances which trigger heightened suspicion – would not be able to contemplate. Mr Syn was driving against the flow of traffic along an 8-lane dual carriageway divided into two by a concrete divider. Further, the turn he was executing into Old Tampines Road ought properly to have been done via a signalised junction. The corollary to this factoid is that Mr Wee would have been entitled – upon seeing the traffic lights turn green in his favour – to assume that no vehicles would have been turning into Old Tampines Road as he passed through it. In making the above observations, guidance is obtained from Thorben Langvad Linneberg v Leong Mei Kuen [2013] 1 SLR 207, in which the Court of Appeal stated (at [50])

14 Third, I observe that Mr Wee’s conduct at the material time was reasonable. He was driving past Old Tampines Road, from which vehicles could have joined Loyang Avenue by making a discretionary left turn. His attention was, and very reasonably so, focused on checking for vehicles emanating from Old Tampines Road to the left, not from the right where Mr Syn’s vehicle was situated.

15 Finally, I find no merit in Mr Syn’s contention that Mr Wee acted unreasonably by not swerving to avoid or mitigate the collision. The latter only had a split second to react to the sight of Mr Syn’s vehicle. In this regard, not only was his attention focused on vehicles emanating from his left, Mr Wee’s sight of Mr Syn’s vehicle would have been obscured by the vehicles which remained stationary at the junction – especially the lorry which was of significant height.

16  In light of my findings above, Mr Syn is held 100 percent liable for the accident, with no liability attributed to Mr Wee.