JUDGMENT

Evrol Mariette Peters JC:

This Appeal

[1] This is the plaintiff's appeal against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge ("SCJ") dated 12 July 2018 on both issues of liability and quantum vis-à-vis the 1st defendant only.

[2] I dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on liability and adjusted the quantum on loss of dependency. I am mindful that my decision on the issue of quantum was academic vis-a-vis the 1st defendant, bearing in mind that I had maintained the decision of the learned SCJ on the absence of liability of the 1st defendant.

[3] In any event, since the plaintiff has appealed against my decision only on the issue of liability, and there has been no cross-appeal by the 1st defendant against my decision on quantum, my reasons as follow are limited only to the issue of liability:

The Background Facts

[4] The claim was filed at the Sessions Court, by the plaintiff (who was the widow of the deceased) based on an accident between motorcycle bearing registration number JPB7792 ridden by the deceased, motorcar bearing registration number JLS 1255 driven by the 1st defendant, lorry bearing registration number JPH 9196 driven by the 2nd defendant, and another motorcar bearing registration number JMC 6075 driven by one Raja Rafidah binti Raja Md Yusuff (who was neither a party to nor a witness in this case).

[5] The learned SCJ apportioned liability at 90:10 to the plaintiff/deceased: the 2nd defendant (with the 3rd defendant being vicariously liable). No liability at all was attached to the 1st defendant.

The Law

[6] The starting point for an Appellate Court is the presumption that any decision appealed against is correct in every respect. Therefore, to succeed in an appeal, the plaintiff in this case must convince this court that the decision appealed against is wrong; and if this court is not so convinced, the appeal fails.