We got "wild animals" on our roads . Can Singaporeans get $500,000

[Watchman]

KOREAN SHUTTLER'S ROAD DEATH to get $500,000 from Singapore courts . But who pays ?

Apr 24, 2010

Teen '70% to blame'
Court awards her parents about half of $500,000 they sought in civil suit
By Selina Lum

The court found that the pedestrian lights were red when Mi Seon (above) ran into the path of the car Madam Shi (second picture) was driving on Dec 13, 2005.


THE Korean teenager knocked down by a car in front of the Singapore Badminton Hall in 2005 was crossing the road while the lights were red against her, the High Court ruled yesterday.

Kim Mi Seon, 15, thus has to bear 70 per cent of the blame for the accident, and the driver of the car, the remaining 30 per cent, said Justice Kan Ting Chiu.

His written judgment closed the civil suit brought by the girl's parents, who had initially sought $500,000 in damages on the basis that the driver was fully liable.

Justice Kan awarded $253,935 to her parents, Mr Kim An Seok, 47, and Madam Jeon Sang Sun, 43.

The issue of whether the traffic light had been in the teenager's favour was a point of contention during the hearing; a coroner's inquiry in 2007 had already recorded an open verdict on her death.

On the morning of Dec 13, 2005, Mi Seon and two of her friends were crossing the road at the junction of Guillemard Road and Lorong 22 Geylang. Her friends, Bang Eun Hye and Yoo Hyeon Yeong, said the pedestrian lights were flashing green at the time.

Read the full story in Saturday's edition of The Straits Times.

[email protected]

 

[Jabba]

They make u pay for the orh chia if u r a singaporean....

 

[Watchman]

$250K in damages awarded ...

To the family of a Korean shuttler who was knocked down in 2005

by Teo Xuanwei
05:55 AM Apr 24, 2010

SINGAPORE - A High Court has awarded over $250,000 in damages to the family of a teenage Korean badminton player who was knocked down and killed by a Korean woman in December 2005.

The woman behind the wheel, Madam Shi Sool Hee, 55, was not wholly responsible for the accident that killed Kim Mi Seon around noon on Dec 13, though, said Justice Kan Ting Chiu on Friday.

Instead, the 15-year-old up-and-coming Korean national junior team player - who was here for her first international tournament at the Singapore Badminton Hall that day - had to bear 70 per cent of the blame for the collision, said the judge.

This was because eyewitnesses' accounts showed that Mi Seon had ignored the red pedestrian crossing light when she ran across the T-junction of Guillemard Road and Lorong 22 Geylang.

Her team-mates, Bang Eun Hye and Yoo Hyeon Yeong, both 16, had stopped at the central divider in time when they realised the lights had changed. But Mi Seon, who had one of her MP3 player earphones on, decided to dash across.

That was when Mdm Shi, a housewife who is a Singapore Permanent Resident, ran into Mi Seon. The girl, who was flung into the air, died about five hours later from multiple injuries.

Although she had the right of way, Mdm Shi was still partly to blame because she had seen the three girls trying to cross the road, said Justice Kan. She should have "realised the possibility of danger" and slowed down but she accelerated instead, thinking that she could drive past them.

Mdm Shi was convicted in a district court of driving without due care and attention on April 16, 2008. She was fined $1,000 and disqualified from driving for six months.

Justice Kan also agreed with Mi Seon's badminton coaches that she had good prospects of turning professional.

She would have been able to provide for her parents, Mr Kim An Seok, 46, and Madam Jeon Sang Sun, 43, from 2010 onwards, he said.

Justice Kan fixed the total loss of earnings at $243,085.65, taking into account her wages and training allowance.

He also awarded $3,000 for bereavement damages and $5,350 in legal costs.

But he rejected the couple's claims for expenses incurred on their trips here and funeral expenses because these had been borne by the Korean Badminton Association.

In total, Justice Kan awarded $251,435.

Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants were in court on Friday

 

[Received_by_Kings]

What a coincidence the Korean girl was killed by a Korean driver also. In Singapore.

"Although she had the right of way, Mdm Shi was still partly to blame because she had seen the three girls trying to cross the road, said Justice Kan. She should have "realised the possibility of danger" and slowed down but she accelerated instead, thinking that she could drive past them."

There are too many things to consider when you drive and especially at the t-junction. You do what you do best within the law. The young girl is 100% at fault for dashing across the road whereas her friends waited (and so nothing happened to them for their abidance of the traffic rules) and therefore no damages should be sued by her parents who defended her wrong. Outrageous!

If I were the judge I'd not even award them a single cent, and before sending them off I'd even lecture them on road safely and send them an instruction manual for pedestrians ie basic traffic rules for dummies.

And if they weren't there I'd simply mail the booklet and my lecture in printed form to them to their wretched town full of shit in South Korea or wherever else they defecate and m&d roll in all the same.

 

[Received_by_Kings]

They make u pay for the orh chia if u r a singaporean....

If the female driver isn't Korean she'd probably get a stiffer sentence too.

 

[wrcboi]

1 country 2 set of laws...thats sg.....like it or hate it...u have to bear it for the next 10 years.....sad case

 

[Watchman]

The thing should penalise the two .

Pedestrian and motorist for causing unnecessary traffic gridlock .

Two bloody FTs .

 

[makapaaa]

What a coincidence the Korean girl was killed by a Korean driver also. In Singapore.

Just goes to show how densely populated Peesai is with FTrash!

 

[Meltdown]

But who pays ?

In a civil case, it's the driver penalized by the judge who should pay. But in practice, it's the insurance company that insures her car will be legally liable to pay the victim's family. That's what auto insurance is for & that's why motorists buy them. To protect themselves against major financial liabilities!

I hope the above paragraph answers your question.

 

[Watchman]

In a civil case, it's the driver penalized by the judge who should pay. But in practice, it's the insurance company that insures her car will be legally liable to pay the victim's family. That's what auto insurance is for & that's why motorists buy them. To protect themselves against major financial liabilities!

I hope the above paragraph answers your question.

Thanks either way . With the rate of payouts and lawsuits .

Insurance will go up .