Singapore Car Accident Lawyer: Navigating Legal Challenges – SINGAPORE: A passenger who survived a car crash that killed a student and injured two others is suing the drivers behind the wheels of the two cars involved for unspecified damages.
Ting Jun Heng, 24, is suing 56-year-old taxi driver Yap Kok Hua and 23-year-old driver Ng Li Ning for negligence in the April 2018 accident that threw him out of the taxi and caused serious injuries .
Singapore Car Accident Lawyer: Navigating Legal Challenges
The civil trial began on Tuesday (June 16) and comes after Yap was convicted of criminal charges last August and sentenced to eight weeks in jail. He was also banned from driving for five years. Ng’s case is pending in state courts.
Soft Law As A Complement To Ai Regulation
Mr Ting, then in his first year at university, was riding in a Yap taxi on an April night with three friends – Ms Kathy Ong, Mr Zon Lim and Mr Lim Jin Jie – to Tembusu College at the National University of Singapore. 19 from. last year
At the intersection of Commonwealth Avenue West at Clementi Road, Yap made a right turn when Ng Li Ning’s car was coming from the opposite direction at high speed.
The ensuing crash partially ejected Ms Ong from the window, while other passengers were injured. Ms Ong, who was 19, later died in hospital.
Mr. Ting was taken to National University Hospital with a traumatic brain injury and possible post-traumatic stress disorder, court documents said.
Building And Construction Lawyer
He was initially in a vegetative state but recovered and suffered broken ribs, a lacerated kidney and multiple pelvic fractures.
According to documents submitted by Mr Ting’s lawyer, Ramasamy K Chettiar of Central Chambers Law, Mr Ting regained consciousness three months after the accident.
His studies were put on hold for at least a year and he underwent treatment including robotic arm therapy, suffering health problems such as infection and anemia while rehabilitating.
Mr Ting alleges that Yap was negligent in several ways, such as: Not keeping a proper lookout, driving at an unreasonable speed, failing to keep an eye on Ng’s vehicle approaching, not yielding to Ng’s vehicle, crossing the path of Ng’s vehicle when he was. dangerous, not slowing down when nearing an intersection, leading to an accident, and an accident cannot be avoided.
Singapore Comparative Law Review (sclr) 2021 By The Ukslss
The list of Ng’s negligent acts include: Driving at too high a speed, not seeing Yap’s taxi turn right, not giving sufficient warning of the his approach, not reducing speed when he is close to the intersection and causing the accident.
Mr Ting, who was 22 at the time of the accident, is seeking unspecified compensation. However, court documents list some specific damages incurred so far, including medical expenses of about S$86,700, transportation expenses of S$1,650 and other expenses of S$30,000 for items such as a chair wheel, mobile dresser and portable bed. railway.
Yap’s lawyers Teo Weng Kie and Shahira Mohd Anuar of Tan Kok Quan Partnership denied that the accident was caused by any negligence on Yap’s part as alleged by Mr Ting.
Yap’s defense says the accident was “caused and/or contributed to solely by (Ng’s) negligence in driving, driving and controlling (Ng’s) vehicle.”
Artificial Intelligence: The Implications For Commercial Law In Asia
They claim that Ng was driving at an unreasonable speed and did not pay enough attention to Yap’s taxi at the intersection.
Yap’s lawyers put Mr Ting through rigorous proof of the serious injury claim, arguing that Mr Ting’s “own negligence” in the Yap taxi caused or contributed to his injury.
This “negligence” includes not wearing a seat belt and not properly looking out for your own safety while traveling in a Yap taxi.
Ng’s lawyer, United Legal Alliance Anthony Wee, said in his client’s defense that the green lights were in Ng’s favour.
Female Motorcyclist Dies After Accident On Tpe, Family Appeals For Witness Or Dashcam Footage
They turned right “suddenly and without warning”, Mr Wee said, and did not give Ng enough time to react, slow down or apply the emergency brake.
Mr Wee alleges that Mr Ting and Yap’s negligence caused or contributed substantially to Mr Ting’s injury, pain, loss and expense.
We know it’s hard to switch browsers, but we want your CNA experience to be fast, secure, and the best. He was thrown from the vehicle when the Audi collided with a truck.
The impact threw the eight-year-old girl from the van, leaving her seriously injured and in a coma. (Photo: Facebook/ROADS.sg)
How To Reduce Risk Of Road Accidents In Singapore
SINGAPORE: A court has found a truck driver 65 percent responsible for an accident in Woodlands in which his eight-year-old brother was thrown from the vehicle onto the grass in 2020.
The Audi driver involved in the accident, Vincent Chui Jin Hua, was found 35 percent responsible. Court documents did not identify the girl or her family.
A lawsuit against the two drivers was filed by the girl, her father and a lawyer. After the accident, he fell into a coma and suffered severe injuries and long-term disability.
These include cognitive impairments, reduced higher language skills, cranial nerve palsy, and dysarthria, which causes slurred or slow speech.
Claiming Trial As An Accused
He also suffers from chronic weakness and spasticity in his right arm and leg and cannot use his right hand actively.
The girl’s uncle was driving a truck on Woodlands Avenue 12 towards Seletar Expressway on the night of October 23, 2020.
The girl, who was eight years old at the time, was sitting in the rear cargo area of the truck, which had no seat or seat belt.
As the girl’s uncle made a permitted U-turn at 12 Woodlands Avenue, a red Audi went down the road and collided with a van.
Make Room For Minicars, The Electric Vehicles Cities Need
Judge Teh Hwee Hwee, in a judgment handed down on Tuesday 13 December, showed that the Audi hit the van with great force.
The truck was thrown into a curve, placed a nearby curve, and landed with the front half of the car on the grass.
The girl, who was sitting on the floor of the rear cargo area with another person, was thrown from the truck onto the grass next to the curb.
The girl’s uncle pleaded guilty to driving without due regard for other road users when he failed to keep a proper eye on a curve and caused the accident.
Your Expert Lawyers In Tampines Junction
He was fined S$2,500 and banned from driving for one year. The Audi driver pleaded guilty to one count of speeding at 124 km/h, which is more than 70 km/h on this road.
This includes disregarding oncoming traffic before turning, not looking properly, not making sure the seat belt was on girl or child reserve allowed and allows her to sit in the back. wind when it is inappropriate or dangerous.
The girl was also accused of neglecting the Audi driver. He said he was driving at an unreasonable speed for the conditions, didn’t hit the brakes and didn’t look for his uncle’s truck.
The girl’s uncle argued that the Audi’s excessive speed played a major role in the accident. He said he would have completed the turn safely if the Audi driver had not accelerated.
The Challenge For Small States In Navigating Turbulent Geopolitical Times
Uncle said that he should bear 55 percent of the responsibility and 45 percent goes to the Audi driver.
The Audi driver argued that the truck driver was largely, if not entirely, responsible for the accident and caused the girl’s injuries by failing to keep a proper lookout. to give or sustain before he turned.
Additionally, the truck driver negligently placed his niece at increased risk of injury by allowing her to ride as an unrestrained passenger in the back of the truck.
The Audi driver said that the driver of the van should be responsible for the accident. On the other hand, liability should not exceed 10 to 20 percent, he said.
Do You See What I See?
Judge Teh said that the accident could have been avoided if the truck driver had kept a good lookout. Similarly, if the Audi driver had not exceeded the speed “to the extreme extent in which he passed”, the accident would not have happened, according to him.
He said the uncle’s failure to ensure his niece was seated properly and secured with a seat belt contributed to the extent and severity of the girl’s injuries.
He noted that the truck driver’s daughter and the complainant’s sister were sitting in the front of the truck and that their seat belts were properly worn. They were not out of the van when the accident happened.
Judge Teh said: “(Uncle) was careless and reckless in putting the eight-year-old child in the back boot of his van, which was not intended to carry passengers.”
Human Liability In Self Driving Vehicle Accidents
“He knew it was not safe for the plaintiff because he knew the cargo area at the back of his van was for cargo, not passengers.”
He said it was “a safe bet and put the claimant at serious risk of serious injury which unfortunately came about”.
As for the Audi driver, he knew this stretch of road
