Summary of Facts

1. Theappellants,personalrepresentativesofSofiahbteAhmad(thedeceased)brought
JAAFAR BIN SHAARI & ANOR v TAN LIP ENG & ANOR
anactioninnegligenceagainsttherespondentsandclaimedfordamagesundersection
[1997] 3 MLJ 693
SUPREME COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
7and8oftheCivilLawAct1956.
PEH SWEE CHIN, WAN ADNAN FCJJ & GOPAL SRI RAM JCA
2. Thedeceased,apedestrianwaskilledinacollisioninvolvingamotorcycleriddenby
the1st respondentandownedby2nd respondent.Itwassaidthatthe1 st respondent
knockedintothedeceasedwhileshewasstandinginthecentreoftheroad.Butthe
respondentallegedthatthedeceasedwascrossingtheroadwhenitwasunsafeforher
todoso.
3. Therewasnoothereyewitnesstotheaccidentandtheonlyotheravailableevidenceof
themanneroftheaccidentwasapolicereportNo424/84(thereport)whichwas
lodgedbythe1strespondentafterthecollision.
4. On 21 September 1987, the respondents counsel wrote to appellants counsel
suggesting that the report be tendered through its maker dispensing with formal
proofandthereportwasincludedinPartIIoftheagreedofdocuments.
5. Atthetrial,theonlywitnesscalledbytheappellantsuponthequestionoffaultwas
theinvestigatingofficerwhohadpreparedthesketchplanofthesceneoftheaccident.
Thesketchplanshowsthemotorcycletobelyingonitsleftsidebodyverycloseto
the centre dividing lines (double lines, fairly parallel to the centre lines and the
appellantswentontocontendthatthe1 strespondentwasnegliegentandreliedonthe
doctrineofresipsaloquiturtoprovetheircase.
6. The appellants sought to tender the report as evidence which gave fairly detailed
accountoftheaccidentwithoutcallingthemakerbutitsadmissibilitywasobjectedto
bytherespondent.
7. Attheendoftheappellantscase,counselfortherespondentsinformedthecourtthat
the1st respondentwasnotavailabletogiveevidenceashewasoverseas(Australia)
andmadeastatementtotheeffectthathewasclosinghiscasebutdidnotmakea
submissionofnocasetoanswer.
8. Thetrialjudgeheldthatthereportwasinadmissibleanddismissedtheclaimonthe
groundthatthetherewasnoevidencetosupporttheallegationofnegligenceasthe
sketchplanwasinconclusiveontheissue.Later,thedecisionwasupheldbytheHigh
Court.
9. TheappellantsappealedcontendingthattheHighCourtjudgehaderredinlaw.
Issue:
1. Whetherthereportwasadmissiblewithoutcallingthemaker?
2. Whethernecessarytoputdefenceonanelectionofwhethertocallevidence?

Appellant Arguments
Respondent Arguments

Courts decision and reasoning

Appealallowed.