Driver wins appeal after judge finds cyclist's negligence contributed to accident

The High Court found that the victim breached two obligations in his conduct as a cyclist by failing to travel at a speed that would allow him to stop at the zebra crossing involved and not stopping to check for oncoming traffic.

A view of the Supreme Court in Singapore. (Photo: CNA/Jeremy Long)

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

SINGAPORE: A private-hire driver who hit a cyclist had his jail sentence replaced with a fine after the High Court found that the cyclist's contributory negligence significantly reduced the driver's culpability.

Eric Yeo Seong Bee, who pleaded guilty to one charge of driving without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, had been sentenced to one week’s jail and disqualified from driving for five years.

He appealed against the jail term, arguing that the cyclist’s own negligence should be a factor in deciding his culpability. He cited previous cases involving contributory negligence in support of his argument.

Yeo also argued that the District Judge wrongly held that he flouted traffic rules and regulations.

CNA Games Guess Word Crack the word, one row at a time Buzzword Create words using the given letters Mini Sudoku Tiny puzzle, mighty brain teaser Mini Crossword Small grid, big challenge Word Search Spot as many words as you can Show More Show Less In a judgment made available on Wednesday (Oct 7), the High Court agreed that the victim’s behaviour should have been considered and the District Judge erred in failing to do so. It ruled that Yeo’s culpability was “significantly reduced” due to the cyclist’s negligence and replaced the jail term with the maximum fine of S$5,000 (US$3,900). THE ACCIDENT Yeo hit the victim on Apr 15, 2023, at a zebra crossing around Outram Road. The private-hire driver was driving along a slip road leading to Eu Tong Sen Street and slowed when he noticed the crossing ahead. However, he did not stop or keep a proper lookout and collided with the victim, who had turned into the crossing after cycling along the footpath beside Outram Road. The cyclist had not stopped before crossing and was hit by Yeo when he entered. When the collision happened, Yeo stopped and called an ambulance. The victim sustained a spinal fracture and underwent surgery for posterior spinal instrumentation and stabilisation. His doctor said he should not suffer any permanent injuries following the incident, and gave him 72 days of medical leave. HIGH COURT RULING The District Judge had arrived at Yeo's sentence after considering his multiple compounded traffic-related offences, including a careless driving offence in 2019 and his failure to conform to a red light in 2024. The initial ruling also considered Yeo's cooperation with the authorities, assistance rendered to the victim and guilty plea. The District Judge ruled that the cyclist's negligence had no bearing on Yeo's culpability as the victim had precedence at the zebra crossing and Yeo should have exercised extra care regardless of whether the cyclist stopped. However, the High Court ruled that in this case Yeo's moral culpability was affected by the victim’s behaviour, noting that cyclists had certain duties at crossings. After reviewing Yeo's in-car camera footage, the High Court found that the victim breached his obligations by failing to travel at a speed that would allow him to stop at the zebra crossing and not stopping to check for oncoming traffic. The cyclist was also issued a stern warning for his conduct. The cyclist’s failure to approach at a speed that would have allowed him to stop reduced the time Yeo had to react, while his failure to check for oncoming traffic further lowered the chances of the driver noticing him, said Justice Dedar Singh Gill J. The fact that Yeo slowed as he approached the zebra crossing was significant because it showed that if the victim had stopped, it was not “inconceivable” that the driver would also have stopped, said the judge. He also disagreed with the finding that the case fell within the higher end of “lesser harm”, pointing out that the overall extent of harm to the victim fell short of past cases with the same classification. However, he upheld the earlier finding that Yeo flouted traffic rules, noting that he failed to stop at the zebra crossing, which breached his obligation to allow the cyclist free and uninterrupted passage. Overall, the judge ruled that the case warranted a fine instead of a jail sentence as it involved “lesser harm”, pegged at the middle of the spectrum, and “lower culpability” at the lowest end of the spectrum. While there were several mitigating factors, such as Yeo’s cooperation with the authorities and early guilty plea, the maximum fine was warranted due to his compounded traffic offences, said the judge. Yeo’s five-year disqualification period from driving also remains.

In a judgment made available on Wednesday (Oct 7), the High Court agreed that the victim’s behaviour should have been considered and the District Judge erred in failing to do so.

It ruled that Yeo’s culpability was “significantly reduced” due to the cyclist’s negligence and replaced the jail term with the maximum fine of S$5,000 (US$3,900).

Yeo hit the victim on Apr 15, 2023, at a zebra crossing around Outram Road. The private-hire driver was driving along a slip road leading to Eu Tong Sen Street and slowed when he noticed the crossing ahead.

However, he did not stop or keep a proper lookout and collided with the victim, who had turned into the crossing after cycling along the footpath beside Outram Road.

The cyclist had not stopped before crossing and was hit by Yeo when he entered. When the collision happened, Yeo stopped and called an ambulance.

The victim sustained a spinal fracture and underwent surgery for posterior spinal instrumentation and stabilisation.

His doctor said he should not suffer any permanent injuries following the incident, and gave him 72 days of medical leave.

The District Judge had arrived at Yeo's sentence after considering his multiple compounded traffic-related offences, including a careless driving offence in 2019 and his failure to conform to a red light in 2024.

The initial ruling also considered Yeo's cooperation with the authorities, assistance rendered to the victim and guilty plea.

The District Judge ruled that the cyclist's negligence had no bearing on Yeo's culpability as the victim had precedence at the zebra crossing and Yeo should have exercised extra care regardless of whether the cyclist stopped.

However, the High Court ruled that in this case Yeo's moral culpability was affected by the victim’s behaviour, noting that cyclists had certain duties at crossings.

After reviewing Yeo's in-car camera footage, the High Court found that the victim breached his obligations by failing to travel at a speed that would allow him to stop at the zebra crossing and not stopping to check for oncoming traffic. The cyclist was also issued a stern warning for his conduct.

The cyclist’s failure to approach at a speed that would have allowed him to stop reduced the time Yeo had to react, while his failure to check for oncoming traffic further lowered the chances of the driver noticing him, said Justice Dedar Singh Gill J.

The fact that Yeo slowed as he approached the zebra crossing was significant because it showed that if the victim had stopped, it was not “inconceivable” that the driver would also have stopped, said the judge.

He also disagreed with the finding that the case fell within the higher end of “lesser harm”, pointing out that the overall extent of harm to the victim fell short of past cases with the same classification.

However, he upheld the earlier finding that Yeo flouted traffic rules, noting that he failed to stop at the zebra crossing, which breached his obligation to allow the cyclist free and uninterrupted passage.

Overall, the judge ruled that the case warranted a fine instead of a jail sentence as it involved “lesser harm”, pegged at the middle of the spectrum, and “lower culpability” at the lowest end of the spectrum.

While there were several mitigating factors, such as Yeo’s cooperation with the authorities and early guilty plea, the maximum fine was warranted due to his compounded traffic offences, said the judge.

Yeo’s five-year disqualification period from driving also remains.

Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox

Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories

Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app

高等法院认定，受害人作为骑自行车的人违反了两项义务：一是骑行速度不足以让他停在斑马线上；二是未停车查看是否有来车。

新加坡最高法院一景。（图片：CNA/Jeremy Long）

这段音频由人工智能工具生成。

新加坡：一名私召车司机撞倒一名骑自行车的人后，高等法院裁定骑自行车的人也有过失，大大减轻了司机的罪责，因此该司机的监禁刑罚被改为罚款。

因驾驶时未合理顾及其他道路使用者而认罪的杨成比（Eric Yeo Seong Bee）被判处一周监禁，并被吊销驾照五年。

他针对监禁判决提出上诉，认为骑车人自身的过失也应作为判定其罪责的考量因素。他援引了以往涉及共同过失的案例来支持自己的论点。

Yeo还辩称，地方法官错误地认定他违反了交通规则和条例。

CNA游戏 猜词游戏 逐行破解单词 流行词游戏 用给定的字母组成单词 迷你数独 小谜题，脑力挑战 迷你填字游戏 小方格，大挑战 单词搜索 尽可能多地找出单词 显示更多 显示更少 在周三（10月7日）公布的判决中，高等法院同意应当考虑受害者的行为，而地方法官未能做到这一点是错误的。法院裁定，由于骑车人的疏忽，Yeo的罪责“显著减轻”，并将监禁改为最高罚款5000新元（3900美元）。 事故经过 2023年4月15日，Yeo在欧南路附近的斑马线上撞倒了受害者。这名私召车司机当时正沿着一条通往余东璇街的匝道行驶，当他注意到前方的斑马线时减速了。然而，他并未停车或保持适当的观察，与受害者相撞。受害者当时骑车沿欧南路旁的人行道行驶，随后转入人行横道。骑车者在过马路前没有停车，被杨某撞倒。碰撞发生后，杨某停车并拨打了急救电话。受害者脊柱骨折，接受了后路脊柱内固定和稳定手术。他的医生表示，事故后他不会留下任何永久性损伤，并给予他72天的病假。高等法院判决：地方法官在考虑了杨某多项交通违章行为（包括2019年的鲁莽驾驶和2024年的闯红灯）后，对其作出了判决。初审还考虑了杨某与当局的合作、对受害者的帮助以及认罪态度。地方法官裁定，骑车人的疏忽与叶某的责任无关，因为受害者在斑马线上拥有优先通行权，无论骑车人是否停车，叶某都应格外谨慎。然而，高等法院裁定，在本案中，受害者的行为影响了叶某的道德责任，并指出骑车人在斑马线上负有特定义务。高等法院在审查了叶某的车载摄像头录像后，认定受害者违反了其义务，因为他没有以足以在斑马线上停车的速度行驶，也没有停车观察来车。此外，法院还对叶某的行为给予了严厉警告。法官迪达·辛格·吉尔 (Dedar Singh Gill) 表示，骑车人未能以足以让他停车的速度接近斑马线，缩短了叶先生的反应时间；同时，他也没有观察来车，进一步降低了司机注意到他的可能性。法官指出，叶先生在接近斑马线时减速这一事实意义重大，因为它表明，如果受害者停车，司机也很有可能停车。他还不同意将此案归类为“较轻伤害”的较高级别，并指出受害者受到的伤害程度低于以往同类案件。然而，他维持了此前关于叶先生违反交通规则的裁决，指出他没有在斑马线前停车，违反了他让骑车人自由通行的义务。总体而言，法官裁定此案应处以罚款而非监禁，因为其造成的损害“较轻”（处于中等程度）且“过错程度较低”（处于最低程度）。法官指出，尽管存在一些减刑因素，例如叶某配合警方调查并认罪较早，但鉴于其多次违反交通法规，最高罚款仍然适用。叶某的五年禁驾期也仍然有效。

高等法院在周三（10 月 7 日）公布的判决书中表示，应该考虑受害者的行为，而地方法官未能这样做是错误的。

法院裁定，由于骑车人的疏忽，Yeo 的罪责“大大减轻”，并将监禁刑罚改为最高罚款 5,000 新元（3,900 美元）。

2023年4月15日，Yeo在欧南路附近的人行横道撞倒了受害者。这名私召车司机当时正沿着一条通往余东璇街的匝道行驶，当他注意到前方的人行横道时减速了。

然而，他没有停车或保持适当的观察，与受害者相撞。受害者当时沿着欧南路旁的人行道骑自行车，然后转入人行横道。

骑车人过马路前没有停车，被Yeo撞倒。事故发生后，Yeo停车并拨打了急救电话。

受害者脊柱骨折，接受了后路脊柱内固定和稳定手术。

他的医生表示，事故发生后他不会留下任何永久性损伤，并给予他 72 天的病假。

地方法官在考虑了叶某的多项交通违章行为（包括 2019 年的鲁莽驾驶罪和 2024 年的闯红灯罪）后，对叶某作出了判决。

初步裁决还考虑了叶某与当局的合作、对受害者的帮助以及认罪情况。

地方法官裁定，骑车人的疏忽与 Yeo 的罪责无关，因为受害者在斑马线上拥有优先权，无论骑车人是否停车，Yeo 都应该格外小心。

然而，高等法院裁定，在本案中，叶某的道德罪责受到受害者行为的影响，并指出骑自行车的人在过马路时负有某些义务。

高等法院在审查了叶某的车载摄像头录像后认定，受害人违反了其义务，未以足以使其在斑马线前停车的速度行驶，也未停车查看来车情况。法院还对该骑车人的行为予以严厉警告。

法官德达尔·辛格·吉尔 (Dedar Singh Gill J.) 表示，骑车人没有以足以让他停下来的速度接近，这减少了叶先生的反应时间；同时，他也没有查看是否有来车，这进一步降低了司机注意到他的机会。

法官表示，叶在接近斑马线时减速这一事实意义重大，因为它表明，如果受害者停车了，那么司机停车也并非“不可想象”。

他还不同意该案属于“较轻伤害”范畴的较高级别，指出受害者受到的伤害程度与以往同类案件相比仍有差距。

然而，他维持了之前关于叶某违反交通规则的裁决，指出他没有在斑马线前停车，违反了他让骑车人自由畅通无阻通行的义务。

总的来说，法官裁定，此案应处以罚款而不是监禁，因为它涉及的“危害较小”，处于中间水平，而且“罪责较低”，处于最低水平。

法官表示，虽然有几个减刑因素，例如叶某配合当局并认罪较早，但由于他多次违反交通法规，因此处以最高罚款是合理的。

Yeo的五年禁驾期仍然有效。

订阅我们的邮件，即可获取精选热点新闻和引人深思的文章。

订阅通知，第一时间获取突发新闻和精彩报道。

加入我们的频道，即可在您常用的聊天应用上获取当日热门文章。