• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Permanently disabled' taxi driver sues Government

Ah Hai

Alfrescian
Loyal
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
1,460
Points
0
SINGAPORE: A 65-year-old taxi driver, who was involved in a collision with a Ministry of Defence (Mindef) land-rover, has sued the Government in the High Court after the accident left him paralysed from the neck down.

Mr Choy Yue Leong, who was ferrying his last passenger during a night shift, was driving along Jalan Bahar towards Lim Chu Kang on April 3 last year at around 5.45am when the collision occurred.

The land-rover was travelling in the opposite direction and making a right turn at the time. The collision seriously damaged both vehicles and has left Mr Choy hospitalised since.

Mr Choy, through his lawyers S. Selvaraj and Daniel Atticus Xu from MyintSoe and Selvaraj, alleged the collision was caused by the land-rover driver's "sole negligence". The Mindef driver, who is 22 years old, had allegedly failed to keep any proper lookout and drove at an excess speed, among other things.

As a result, Mr Choy "has suffered personal injuries and consequential loss", Mr Selvaraj argued.

A National University Hospital (NUH) medical report said Mr Choy "will be permanently disabled from the accident".

The Attorney-General, who is acting on behalf of the Government in the civil suit, has denied the claims. The traffic light at the road junction indicated a red light with green turning arrow in the land-rover driver's favour, argued State Counsel Lim Sai Nei.

As the Mindef driver was making a right turn into the Pan-Island Expressway, Ms Lim said Mr Choy's taxi "suddenly collided into the front left portion of the Government vehicle". The accident was "wholly caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff in the driving, use, management and control" of his taxi, the AG argued in its defence filed in the High Court.

An interlocutory judgment has been entered which means both sides will share liability for the collision.

A further pre-trial conference has been set for May 15. As the suit is heard before the High Court, Mr Choy's claim will exceed $250,000.

When the collision occurred, the road surface was dry, the weather was clear and traffic volume was light. A passenger whom Mr Choy was ferrying was asleep when the collision occurred.

The land-rover's driver and four passengers were brought to a hospital. It is not known if the land-rover driver has been dealt with by the authorities.

After spending six months in NUH, Mr Choy was transferred to Ang Mo Kio-Thye Hua Kwan Hospital last November for further rehabilitation.

When MediaCorp visited Mr Choy, 65, on Wednesday night, the former cabbie tried to speak, but his voice was barely audible. He also needed help for simple tasks - for example, a family member had to help roll him over to prevent bed sores from developing.

Mr Choy's son, Patrick, told MediaCorp that his father was finishing his shift when the collision occurred. He had also been driving a taxi for more than 20 years, Patrick added.

The family has had a trying time since the accident - not only are the cabbie's medical bills mounting, Mr Choy's wife was also diagnosed with breast cancer last December and is now undergoing treatment. - TODAY
 
Sue gahmen is like throwing eggs against a rock. U might feel shiok throwing but the end result is nothing.
 
From my own experiences, most of our taxi drivers drive like Michael Shumacher. So, who do you think is genuinely at fault? How can the injury be so serious if he had only followed the old school teaching of slowing down at traffic junctions, no matter what the situation may be?
 
Look at the 2 assholes above postings!!?? No compassion at all. This is the sorry state of our Singapore Society. Not cohesive, no compassion, you die your problem, etc.

This is an election year. The poor cabby got a fighting chance to get compensated by Mindef. He is stupid like you. Although he is poor and might not be able to see the case through.
 
I had a narrow escape from a taxi at a junction when the pedestrain walk way traffic light was green. The fcuker made a right turn without slowing down his taxi, luckily I avoided by stepping back and the fcuker never slowed and just speeded away.

The time was 2.15 am. Wonder why the fcuker drove in such dangerous manner? Perhaps his wife was having sex with her lover and he rushed back to catch them?:oIo::oIo::oIo:
 
i doubt that the rover driver would dare to drive in opp direction, those who had been to the army before will know how ks they are. i'm not surprise that the taxi driver is the one at fault and making up the story to claim for $$
 
your this statement reflects very badly on taxi drivers leh...btw, that cemetery road at night is like a race track. So can't blame either side,i think! Blame it on the early hours of the day, whereby the rover driver assume that no other vehicles are on the road when he made that illegal drive in the opp direction.
 
your this statement reflects very badly on taxi drivers leh...btw, that cemetery road at night is like a race track. So can't blame either side,i think! Blame it on the early hours of the day, whereby the rover driver assume that no other vehicles are on the road when he made that illegal drive in the opp direction.

well, you may be right but most taxi drivers drove like the road belong to them, suddenly jam brake to pick up customer, stopping in the middle of road to drop them off etc. SAF vehicle usually have a vehicle commander & its very unlikely for both driver and commander to commit such a serious offence like driving in oppsite direction
 
ya...ya...most taxi drivers drove like that because they have a business to do,not sightseeing.

the taxi driver was driving on a straight road whereas the land rover was making a right turn. Taken into consideration of the time and the road they were on, it's very likely that the vc was daydreaming or having a nap although not stated. And very possible the rover driver made his own judgement that caused this accident.

well, you may be right but most taxi drivers drove like the road belong to them, suddenly jam brake to pick up customer, stopping in the middle of road to drop them off etc. SAF vehicle usually have a vehicle commander & its very unlikely for both driver and commander to commit such a serious offence like driving in oppsite direction
 
i doubt that the rover driver would dare to drive in opp direction, those who had been to the army before will know how ks they are. i'm not surprise that the taxi driver is the one at fault and making up the story to claim for $$

True to a sense .

But no mention of a vehicle commander ?

The land-rover's driver and four passengers were brought to a hospital. It is not known if the land-rover driver has been dealt with by the authorities.
 
very possible they have one sitting infront as vc,can't possibly one drive and the other 4 in the back of the rover.

True to a sense .

But no mention of a vehicle commander ?
 
Look at the 2 assholes above postings!!?? No compassion at all. This is the sorry state of our Singapore Society. Not cohesive, no compassion, you die your problem, etc.

This is an election year. The poor cabby got a fighting chance to get compensated by Mindef. He is stupid like you. Although he is poor and might not be able to see the case through.

Whatever you pussy may say, the MINDEF vehicle was turning, the fucking taxi was going straight. Tell me who's vehicle can be faster? If neither of their speed is excessive, how can the injury be that serious? Like PCK always say: Use your blain lah?

Furthermore, who doesn't know how most of our taxi drivers drive in Singapore, like as if they own the roads. If you question them further, they'll tell you: I have more driving experience than you because I've been driving for over 10 years at more than 12 hours per day. WTF?
 
It is not known if the land-rover driver has been dealt with by the authorities.

U better believe he has been courtmartialled. In the SAF, u langar whether its your fault or not, sure to get court martialled and go DB.
 
The plaintiff's lawyers said the rover driver drove at excessive speed. How can that be when he is making a turn? Unless u have a car low to the ground, u must slow down when making turn or you will tip the rover. Therover driver had a green arow for his turnign lane, so as he is focused on making the turn he did not see the taxi driver coming from the left side. That is why the damage to the rover is on the right side. The taxi driver is 100% at fault. Probably he is tired at the end of his shift and ranthe red light. Doesn't his insurance cover it?Must sue MINDEF for fuck? These 2 high paid lawyers will end up leeching most of the money.
 
confirm plus guarantee e taxi @ fault... 22 yr old rover drive wun haf e balls 2 do a turn @ such speed. N is e rover even capable of dat? Taxi drivers r good @ 1 thing...lying.
Knn they rly believe they r king of e road.
Gt 1 taxi cut into my lane din signal den i hit its side. Fcuker come out 1st qn ask y i never give way. Wtf?
 
confirm plus guarantee e taxi @ fault... 22 yr old rover drive wun haf e balls 2 do a turn @ such speed. N is e rover even capable of dat? Taxi drivers r good @ 1 thing...lying.
Knn they rly believe they r king of e road.
Gt 1 taxi cut into my lane din signal den i hit its side. Fcuker come out 1st qn ask y i never give way. Wtf?

ya i agree with you, btw Land Rover top speed is ONLY 60 km/h
 
Look at the 2 assholes above postings!!?? No compassion at all. This is the sorry state of our Singapore Society. Not cohesive, no compassion, you die your problem, etc.

This is an election year. The poor cabby got a fighting chance to get compensated by Mindef. He is stupid like you. Although he is poor and might not be able to see the case through.

Hey STUCK_HERE, after so many of the above posts condemning the taxi driver and with good annotations, I believe your compassion is very wrongly placed here.
 
The plaintiff's lawyers said the rover driver drove at excessive speed. How can that be when he is making a turn?

LOL. Those money sucking lawyers must be believing that Land Rovers can also do drifting. They must have watched too much of Fast & Furious. WTF?
 
that's provided e rover is going straight. How e hell is e rover gg do a turn @ 60kmh? Thats crap...oni taxi drivers will claim everyone else is speeding n they r nt.
Granted dey r earning a living, bt does dat mean we owe them a living? Knn
They hit u, tell u sob story, they hit u on e side or u hit dem, they claim max and curse n swear... Nt all, but i tink enuff of such asses ard to give them a bad rep.
 
Back
Top