Lawyer loses bid to hold PLUS liable for Ferrari crash

KUALA LUMPUR: A lawyer failed to hold Projek Lebuhraya Usahasama Bhd (PLUS) liable for his 2018 Ferrari crash on the North-South Expressway (NSE), which he claimed was caused by a “foreign object” on the road.

In dismissing Balakrishna Balaravi Pillai’s appeal, the High Court in Ipoh upheld the Sessions Court’s earlier decision and ordered him to pay RM2,000 in costs.

The judge ruled that Balakrishna had failed to discharge the burden of proving that the highway concessionaire was negligent or had breached its duty as a highway operator.

Balakrishna as plaintiff claimed that his super car had collided with a foreign object lying on the overtaking lane of the expressway at 10.45pm on July 20, 2018.

He claimed this object caused damage to his vehicle and asserted that the highway concessionaire was negligent in failing to maintain the road and remove the hazard.

Balakrishna relied on his own testimony and other motorists who allegedly encountered the same object as evidence.

The plaintiff further argued that he had called PLUS-line (the defendant’s emergency response) and that no aid was rendered.

Meanwhile, PLUS denied liability, maintaining that no object was observed at the relevant location and time.

Relying on evidence from its patrol officers, PLUS showed that multiple patrols were conducted on the night in question, and no obstruction or accident was observed.

The defendant also submitted that the plaintiff failed to prove any negligence, identify the alleged object, and produce critical supporting evidence, particularly call logs, photographs, or forensic assessments of the object.

Judge Moses Susayan in his judgment said there was no evidence to support the plaintiff’s claim that a “foreign object” had caused the crash, describing the case as speculative and uncorroborated.

“In the present case, no object was ever identified, much less photographed or examined by a forensic expert.

“The plaintiff failed to prove what was hit, how it came to be on the road, or that the defendant knew or ought to have known of it.

“The plaintiff himself admitted he could not describe what he collided with.

“Moreover, the defendant demonstrated that its patrol teams inspected the area both before and after the alleged incident and found no hazards,” he said in his grounds of judgment dated yesterday.

Moses said it was neither practical nor legally required for a highway concessionaire to patrol every kilometre every minute.

He said what mattered was that PLUS had reasonable monitoring and inspection protocols in place.

The court said the defendant, as a highway concessionaire, is not subject to strict liability.

“The law does not impose liability on the defendant merely because an accident occurred or a foreign object found its way onto the expressway,” he added.

Lawyer S. Athithan appeared for the highway concessionaire while Balakrishna represented himself.

© New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd

Source link