SHSK v LS & Anor [2020] 3 MLJ 405

Court of Appeal

Road accident — Negligence — Claim for damages

1. This case arose from a road traffic accident that occurred on 21 January 2011, in which the Appellant/Plaintiff, SHSK, suffered personal injuries. He sued the Respondents/Defendants for damages in the Magistrate’s Court, alleging that the accident was caused by their negligence.
2. The Magistrate’s Court found the Respondents/Defendants 100% liable and awarded the Appellant/Plaintiff RM27,000 in general damages, comprising RM24,000 for fractures of four ribs and RM3,000 for left empyema thoracic. The Magistrate accepted the evidence of three medical experts who confirmed that the Appellant/Plaintiff’s rib injuries were consistent with the accident and that he had not been involved in any other incident.
3. The Respondents/Defendants appealed to the High Court, arguing that the medical evidence was insufficient to link the rib fractures to the accident. The High Court agreed, finding that the initial medical report and x-rays taken immediately after the accident did not show any rib fractures. The High Court judge concluded that there was no credible evidence connecting the fractures to the accident, and thus set aside RM24,000 of the award, maintaining only the RM3,000 for thoracic injury.
4. The Appellant/Plaintiff appealed further to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the High Court had misdirected itself by ignoring relevant and credible medical evidence, and by substituting its own factual findings for those made by the trial court.

1. Whether the High Court erred in disallowing damages for the rib fractures.
2. Whether the High Court failed to properly evaluate the expert medical testimony and unlawfully interfered with the factual findings of the trial court.

(1)  Whether the High Court erred in disallowing damages for the rib fractures.

(a) The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in its evaluation of the evidence. The High Court had failed to properly consider the testimonies of three expert witnesses (“medical experts”).

(b) The medical experts confirmed that the Appellant/Plaintiff had not been involved in any other accident between the date of the collision on 21 January 2011 and the CT scan on 1 February 2011, which revealed fractures of four ribs consistent with the accident. They further explained that the initial frontal x-rays failed to detect the fractures, as such imaging is limited in identifying rib injuries, whereas a CT thorax scan provides a more accurate and reliable diagnosis.

(c)  The Court of Appeal noted that the Appellant/Plaintiff’s continuous complaints of chest pain and medical progression from x-ray to CT scan provided a consistent causal chain linking the injuries to the accident. The High Court, in ignoring this evidence, had reached a conclusion contrary to the weight of evidence.

(d) The Court of Appeal emphasized that later medical imaging may validly establish injury causation even if initial diagnostic results were inconclusive. The Magistrate’s reliance on these later findings and expert testimony was therefore proper.

(e)  Citing the case of Multar v Lim Kim Chet & Anor [1982] 1 MLJ 184, the Court reaffirmed that appellate courts should not disturb the trial court’s findings of fact unless there is clear misdirection or disregard of material evidence. The Magistrate’s Court had made reasoned findings supported by expert evidence, and there was no justification for interference by the High Court.

(f)   Similarly, in Sekaran Muniandy & Anor v Raman Varathan [2016] 1 LNS 208, the court held that injuries discovered in later medical reports could still be attributed to the original accident. The same reasoning applied where the later CT scan did not create new injuries but merely confirmed those undetected initially.

(2)  Whether the High Court failed to properly evaluate the expert medical testimony and unlawfully interfered with the factual findings of the trial court.

(a) The Court of Appeal found that the High Court misdirected itself by rejecting credible and unchallenged expert evidence. The Magistrate had accepted the expert testimony after hearing the witnesses directly, but the High Court re-evaluated the evidence without any legal basis.

(b) The Court of Appeal judges highlighted that all three experts were qualified and their evidence was not challenged in any meaningful way. Their collective testimony explained both the medical logic (why fractures were not initially detected) and the causal link to the accident.

(c)  The High Court’s finding that the Appellant/Plaintiff’s evidence was “self-serving” was held to be erroneous, as it ignored the corroboration provided by multiple independent experts. The Court of Appeal reiterated that trial courts are the proper fact-finders since it directly hears and observes the witnesses. An appellate court must not substitute its own assessment of witness credibility without strong justification.

(d) The Court also observed that paragraph 8 of the Respondents/Defendants’ Statement of Defence merely contained a general denial of the injuries and did not allege that the injuries arose from any other cause. Such a denial, being bare and unspecific, carried no evidential weight and could not rebut the Appellant/Plaintiff’s evidence.

(e)  In conclusion, the Court of Appeal found that the High Court had failed to consider material evidence and had acted contrary to principles of medical and legal reasoning.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal with costs, set aside the High Court’s decision, and reinstated the Magistrate’s award of RM27,000. The Court of Appeal also held that the High Court had wrongly interfered with findings of fact and ignored material expert evidence linking the injuries to the road accident.

1. Courts must give appropriate weight to qualified expert testimony, especially in personal injury and medical-related cases. Where expert evidence is credible and unchallenged, it cannot be disregarded without proper reason.
2. An appellate court should not disturb findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong or based on a misdirection. Trial courts are in the best position to assess credibility, having directly observed the witnesses.