NURUL ATIKAH MUSTAFA KAMAL v. NURAZLINA SURIANI ZULKIFLY & ORS

[2019] 2 MLRH 378

NURUL ATIKAH MUSTAFA KAMAL v. NURAZLINA SURIANI ZULKIFLY & ORS
High Court Malaya, Melaka
Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera J
[Civil Suit No: 21NCVC-01-04-2016]
26 February 2019

JUDGMENT

Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera J:

[1] This is a personal injuries claim for damages arising from negligence of the defendants. I had allowed the plaintiff's claim against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants on the basis of joint and several liability and against the 5th defendant on the basis of vicarious liability. These are my grounds for that decision.

[2] The factual background to the plaintiff's claim is as follows.

[3] The plaintiff was at the material time a Form 3 student at the Maktab Rendah Sains MARA Kem Terendak, Melaka ("MRSM"). The 1st defendant was a teacher at the MRSM, and was the plaintiff's health and physical education teacher. The 2nd defendant was the Principal of the MRSM at the material time. The 3rd defendant is a statutory body established under the Majlis Amanah Rakyat Act 1966 (Act 486) and was the body that managed and operated the MRSM. The plaintiff states that the 3rd defendant is vicariously liable to acts and omissions of the 1st and 2nd defendants.

[4] The MRSM was built within a military camp known as Kem Terendak, which was owned and operated by the 4th and 5th defendants, and the infrastructure, buildings and facilities within the MRSM, including the maintenance thereof, were within the control, supervision and purview of the 4th defendant.

[5] The plaintiff states that the 5th defendant is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants.

(a) severe fracture of Thoracic 12 vertebra (T12);

(b) severe dislocation at T11-T12 vertebral level;

(c) paraplegia of the lower body secondary to the spinal injury; and

(d) incontinence - requiring continuous intermittent self-catherisation.

[7] Before commencement of trial, counsel for the plaintiff informed the court that the plaintiff and the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants had come to a settlement where the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants had agreed to pay a certain sum of money to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff did not proceed to withdraw the claim against the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants, but told the court that no matter what the outcome of the trial, the plaintiff would limit her claim for monetary damages against the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants to the sum agreed between them. Hence, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants and their counsel did not participate in the trial.

Sign up to view full cases Login