SINGAPORE: A hawker who suffered injuries in a traffic accident and had to give up his food stall to become an insurance agent was awarded about S$128,000 (US$94,500) in damages after suing the driver.
The court found the case “rather novel” as the question arose as to whether the former hawker could claim for a loss of earning capacity, even though he earned more after the accident.
In a judgment made available on Saturday (Aug 12), Deputy Registrar Loh Hui-min found that he could.
The accident occurred on Jul 30, 2018 when the plaintiff’s motorcycle was hit by a vehicle driven by the defendant, Mr Yap Choon Lye.
The accident left the plaintiff, Mr Shawn Tan Shin Han, with leg lacerations that required surgery, a skin graft and physiotherapy to walk without aid.
As a result, Mr Tan had a permanently stiff knee and an abnormal gait that would mean he was likely unable to resume his job as a hawker.
The driver, Mr Yap, was found to be 90 per cent liable for the accident.
Thus, Mr Tan was awarded S$128,471, which was 90 per cent of the total amount of S$142,746 assessed by the court.
The total damages Ms Loh awarded to Mr Tan include S$27,000 for right leg lacerations, S$16,000 for multiple scarring, S$33,000 for future medical expenses, S$700 for his damaged motorcycle and loss of use, and about S$767 for loss of the equipment he bought for his hawker business.
LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY
After the accident, Mr Tan gave up his job as a hawker running a western food stall because of the injuries he suffered.
He claimed that he was forced to give up his dream of being a successful hawker and business owner, saying that business was doing well and making a profit some three months in. It had also attracted “glittering reviews on social media”, he said.
He said he had lost out on business expansion and franchising opportunities, which would have given him an income of S$10,000 to S$20,000 a month.
However, Ms Loh found no credible evidence of the business’ alleged prospects. The stall had not been operating for a long time enough for the court to find that it would have continued successfully in the long term, she said.
In fact, his business partner had said a month before the accident that he wanted to leave.
After the accident, Mr Tan found a job as an insurance agent and earned more than he did before the accident – an average of S$3,612 a month in 2019 and 2020.
However, because of his disabilities, he had to take breaks more frequently to rest or stretch at roadshows or meeting potential clients, impacting his work.
Ms Loh accepted that there was “a real risk” that Mr Tan might lose his job as an insurance agent. Mr Tan was 31 years old at the time of assessment and had a long working lifespan ahead of him, in a highly competitive industry where he is still a rookie trying to build up his clientele, she said.
“Work as an insurance agent is also heavily reliant on the plaintiff’s ability to network and meet clients, and his permanent disabilities will continue to impact his ability to do so,” said Ms Loh.
She said Mr Tan would be at a disadvantage in competing for jobs as an insurance agent or other roles that require him to walk or stand for extended periods of time.
On whether Mr Tan could claim for loss of earning capacity since he was earning more now compared with his pre-accident job, Ms Loh said that the purpose of such a claim was to compensate the claimant for the financial harm brought on by the competitive disadvantage caused by his injuries.
The fact that Mr Tan’s post-accident income was more than his pre-accident income would not be a bar to such a claim, she said, awarding Mr Tan S$40,000 for loss of earning capacity.
Ms Loh also awarded about S$13,900 for Mr Tan’s pre-trial loss of earnings. This was based on a figure of S$966.08 per month he made as a hawker.
FAILED CLAIMS
Mr Tan had tried to claim S$6,000 for his loss of marriage prospects due to his scarring and how the accident affected his ability to have a stable career, but the court rejected this.
Previous cases where claimants were awarded damages for loss of marriage prospects were for incurable terminal cancer and severe disability, said Ms Loh.
She added that “running a hawker business was by no means more stable an income source than being an insurance agent”.
“In fact, by his own admission, the plaintiff has better working hours as an insurance agent which gives him more time to date seriously,” she said.
Mr Tan had also tried to claim for the cost of a car he bought after the accident, that he had said was necessary as he could no longer ride a motorcycle.
The court rejected this after Mr Tan failed to explain why he could not rent a car instead or take taxis or Grab. Mr Tan also admitted that he had always intended to buy a car.
The defendant was separately ordered to pay Mr Tan costs of S$25,000.