SINGAPORE: An SMRT technical officer who was in a minor accident with another driver sued for at least S$75,000 (US$57,760), but a court awarded only a fraction of the amount.
In a judgment made available on Tuesday (Oct 14), District Judge Georgina Lum found that an injury claimed for by the plaintiff was pre-existing.
She also found that the sum of S$33,750 over 216 days of medical leave claimed for loss of earnings for his side job as a Grab driver did not tally with a previous declaration to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) that he had earned only S$18,000 for the year of 2019.
The plaintiff, Mr Ja’afar Abdul Samad, had stopped at a red light sometime past 4.15am on Jan 19, 2022 at the junction of Yishun Avenue 5.
The defendant, Mr Lim Zhen Xiang, had stopped behind Mr Ja’afar but dozed off and accidentally released the car brake. The vehicle then rolled forward into Mr Ja’afar’s vehicle, in what Mr Lim called a “minor collision”.
Mr Ja’afar did not challenge Mr Lim’s version of events during the trial, nor did he dispute the authenticity of the photos taken by Mr Lim.
At trial, Mr Lim said he bore full responsibility for the accident. He agreed to pay Mr Ja’afar the sums of S$972.88 and S$420 for repair costs and Mr Ja’afar’s loss of use for the vehicle.
CLAIMS BY MR JA’AFAR
Mr Ja’afar sued for general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities amounting to S$32,000, loss of earning capacity amounting to S$15,000, S$28,000 for future medical expenses and treatments, and special damages.
Mr Lim disputed the extent of loss and damage, saying Mr Ja’afar’s medical issues were not attributable to the minor accident.
Among other things, Mr Ja’afar claimed that the accident resulted in injuries to his right shoulder, which include an acute muscle injury, a fracture and a rotator cuff muscle or tendon injury.
Judge Lum accepted the opinion of an accident investigator called by Mr Lim, who said the contact between the vehicles was “so light” that it would not have caused Mr Ja’afar’s vehicle to surge forward, or forced Mr Ja’afar forward in his seat.
The expert said the level of dynamic movement asserted by Mr Ja’afar was “simply not possible” given the nature of the collision and the “very low speed minor rear contact”.
The judge accepted the expert’s views, as they were in line with photographs showing no obvious damage to both vehicles, low repair costs agreed to between the parties and the fact that the back-seat passenger in Mr Ja’afar’s vehicle had not been injured.
She found that the accident was “one of low impact”.
As for the alleged shoulder injuries, especially the rotator cuff injury, Mr Ja’afar’s expert witness Dr Han Fucai said he could still continue with his two jobs but he feels pain in the shoulder with heavier loads, overhead and strenuous upper limb activities.
Dr Han testified that rotator cuff tears can occur even in low-impact cases, so it does not necessarily have to be a high-impact injury that causes a tear.
However, he agreed that most patients in their 50s who work as technical officers would have some form of pre-existing degeneration in their shoulders.
During cross-examination, he said he was unable to ascertain totally that the rotator cuff tears were due to degeneration.
Judge Lum found that Mr Ja’afar did not prove that the accident had caused his rotator cuff injuries and found that they were most likely degenerative in nature, with a minor shoulder strain from the accident precipitating symptoms of the rotator cuff tears.
She said she could not accept Mr Lim’s submission that there were no injuries caused by the accident, as his own medical expert said Mr Ja’afar had suffered a minor shoulder strain.
She accepted that there was some “arguable evasiveness” by Mr Ja’afar, but would not go as far as to say he was an unreliable witness and that his injuries should be disregarded.
She awarded S$4,000 for the minor shoulder strain precipitating symptoms in his pre-existing rotator cuff injuries.
Judge Lum also awarded S$1,500 for Mr Ja’afar’s neck or back strain, but did not award any damages for his claim that the accident had caused a head injury or vertigo as he was unable to prove this.
LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY
Mr Ja’afar claimed for loss of earning capacity. He was working a full-time job as a technical officer with SMRT Trains on a permanent night shift and was a private-hire driver using the Grab application during the day.
He said his right shoulder injuries adversely affect his performance at both jobs and he would be disadvantaged if he seeks a similar replacement job should he lose any of his two jobs.
Judge Lum did not make an award for his loss of earning capacity, noting that Mr Ja’afar accepted on the stand that he had suffered no loss of earning capacity or ability to work.
He testified that he had continued working in both jobs, with no complaints from SMRT, and had been given pay raises and bonuses as usual from the transport operator.
All the doctors before the court said he could continue working both jobs, but said he may suffer pain if he engages in certain strenuous activities.
Mr Ja’afar sought special damages for future medical expenses including hospitalisation and operation fees for his rotator cuff, estimated at S$25,000, as well as other medical fees including physiotherapy fees estimated at S$3,000.
Judge Lum declined to make an award for future medical expenses, saying Mr Ja’afar had failed to discharge his burden of proof that the surgery is necessary. In fact, his condition has improved.
She awarded a sum of S$340 for Mr Ja’afar’s transport expenses to a hospital and polyclinic.
Mr Ja’afar was also awarded S$5,351.36 for the pre-trial loss of earnings he suffered from his job with SMRT. During his period of medical leave after the accident, Mr Ja’afar was paid his basic salary, but missed out on overtime and overtime-related allowances that he typically earned as a technical officer, with the drop in earnings reflected in pay slips from March to May 2022.
Mr Lim did not dispute this drop in income, submitting for a higher sum to be awarded based on another alternative method of calculation for accuracy, which the judge accepted.
PRE-TRIAL LOSS OF EARNINGS AS GRAB DRIVER
However, she rejected the sum of S$33,742.15 Mr Ja’afar sought for pre-trial loss of earnings as a Grab driver.
He said he drove about six days a week during the day and would have driven for 185 days out of the 216 days he was on medical leave.
He gave two weeks’ worth of Grab income statements to support his claim that he earned an average of S$275.39 in gross income per day, and S$182.39 in net income a day. He roughly estimated that his expenses came up to an average of S$93 per day, but gave no supporting documentation.
Judge Lum said that the computation of Mr Ja’afar’s average income as a Grab driver cannot be based on a mere two weeks, given he has six years’ experience in the job.
Secondly, the purported average daily gross income and daily net income was inconsistent with, and far higher than, the annual income Mr Ja’afar previously declared to IRAS.
In 2020, he declared to IRAS that he had earned only S$18,000 as a Grab driver for the year 2019. This is far lower than his net annual income of about S$57,000 based on his claimed sum of S$182.39 per day.
In 2021, he declared to IRAS only a sum of S$7,107 for his work as a Grab driver for the year 2020. At trial, he said this was purportedly a result of working a lot of overtime shifts at his SMRT job.
However, the judge said this does not assist him as it shows he does not regularly drive for six out of seven days a week as he claims, and that his Grab income varies greatly depending on his workload with SMRT.
In 2022, Mr Ja’afar did not declare any income from working as a Grab driver for the year 2021, saying he had earned less than S$20,000 that year.
The judge said she did not think this statement was true, as he had consistently declared income below S$20,000 for his work as a Grab driver to IRAS for previous years.
Due to the various inconsistencies and contradictions, Judge Lum said there was no clear, consistent or reliable basis for the court to properly calculate or justify an award for pre-trial loss of earnings as a Grab driver to Mr Ja’afar.
In total, she awarded S$5,500 in general damages to him, with another S$6,703.59 in special damages.
