The document summarizes a case study about a bus accident involving students on a school trip. The bus lost control after a tire burst and overturned on the highway. Four people - two students, a teacher, and a local official - were killed trying to rescue others from the bus when a trailer rammed into the overturned bus. Based on the timeline and details provided, the document argues that both the bus driver and the trailer driver were negligent. The bus driver failed to properly check the bus before the long trip, and the trailer driver did not slow down or avoid the bus accident scene in time to prevent further casualties. The trailer driver is ultimately deemed most liable since his omission contributed directly to the additional deaths.

1. Common Law (22034)
Presentation 2 - Assessment No 8
Presenter: MUHAMMAD FADHIL BIN
ISMAIL
ID: SHT 09-07 1912
Class: HND 2C
Instructor: MR. AHMAD SHAHRIMAN
BIN AHMAD TEKMEZI

2. What is
Negligence???
 Means that someone was careless
and as a result of being careless,
(careless conduct). It is also a breach
of careless duty to take care which
result in damage, undesired by the
defendant to the plaintiff
 It falls below the recognized standards
of behavior established by low for the
protection of others against
unreasonable risks of harm.
 A person has acted negligently if
he/she has departed from the conduct
expected of a reasonably courtesy

3. There are 3 steps in
proving negligence, the
plaintiff must prove:
 Must take care the duty of care, (legal
duty to take care)
 Behaviour of defendant in the
circumstances did not meet the
standard of care which a reasonable
person would meet in the
circumstances (breach of duty)
 A plaintiff has suffered injury for which
a reasonable person in circumstances
which might have been expected to
predict (remoteness of damage)

4. Legal duty to take care
 The element determines whether the type of loss suffered
by the plaintiff in all the circumstances of the case is
actionable.
 Towards the person in the surrounding
 Must done the neighborhood test, closely & directly
affected by the defendant.
 E.g: Case Donaghue v Stevenson (1993)
The customer claims compensation from the manufacturer
as he found decomposed remains of snail in his ginger
beer.

5. Breach of duty
 This element is concerned with the
standard of care that have been adopted in
all the circumstances of the cases, and
assesses the extent to which the standard
of care exercised by the defendant fell
short of that expected.
 Responsible Test, to determine the below
minimum standard requirement
Skill
Knowledge
Experience E.g: Case ROE v Minister of Health (1954)
 Using responsible test, knowledge
 Dr.G already take precaution, he is not
negligent because of skill/knowledge at that

6. Remoteness of damage
 This element covers the issue of fact and
an issue of the law.
 Issue of fact – the extent to which the
actions of the defendant were the factual
cause of the plaintiff’s loss
 Issue of law – the extent to which the law
recognizes the loss sustained by the
plaintiff and provides compensation for
such loss E.g: Cases Barnett v Chelsea and
Kensington Hospital Management
Committee (1968)
 The man vomit after drink a tea, go to doctor
and the doctor ask to go home, the man died
because of arsenic, the possibly for him to

7.  BEHRANG: Four people will forever be remembered as
good Samaritans who died trying to rescue their friends
trapped in a bus that skidded and keeled over when a
sand-laden trailer ploughed into it in a gruesome
accident along the North-South Expressway. The four
are SMK Air Merah Form Three students Khairul Anwar
Azhan and Maysarra Zaidi, both 15, their teacher Siti
Hajar Mohamad, 33, and Kampung Alor Teja Wanita
Umno branch chief Basarah Saad, 45. The students
and teacher were on their way from Kulim to Kuala
Lumpur when their bus overturned. It was then rammed
by the trailer at the 382nd kilometre of the North-South
Expressway, 100m from the rest area here, at about
4.20am yesterday.
Case Study Given

8. Case Study Given

9.  Khairul, Maysarra and Siti had crawled out and were doing
their best to pull the others out. Basarah, who was on another
bus, had got off the vehicle to help the teachers and students
in the overturned bus when the trailer rammed into it. The
trailer which hit Khairul, Maysarra, Siti and Basarah also
overturned. Siti was decapitated and lost her leg while
Maysarra was buried in the sand. Rescue personnel pulled
out Maysarra's body out of the sand six hours later, but that,
too, by accident they were looking for Siti's leg. Tanjung
Malim acting OCPD Supt Md Tahir Kasim said the bus
involved in the accident was carrying 36 students and three
teachers.
“There were two drivers on board. Initial investigations
showed that the driver at the wheel lost control of the bus
after one of the front tyres burst. “The bus swung to the left
and overturned. While attempts were being made to get the
students and the teachers out, a trailer hit the stationary bus
from behind,” he said. Supt Md Tahir said the drivers of the
bus and trailer escaped with slight injuries.
Case Study Given

10.  As for my opinion, first, the one who liable for this
tragic accident is the 1st bus which after
investigation showed that the bus is in lost
control after one of the front tyre burst, this can
be refer to the breach of duty. It is because the
driver bus should do the responsible test which
he had already know that they are going to travel
in a long way from Kulim to Kuala Lumpur, by
seeing to the skill, knowledge and experience the
bus driver must take precaution to check all the
parts of the bus before travelling, for the tyre, he
should check as if the tyre has worn out or the
retread tyre is outdated. According to the case of
ROE v Minister of Health (1954), the doctor has
already take precaution but the accident happen
because of lack of knowledge at that time.
Case Study Answer

11.  Then, the second is the Lorry, it is stated that “4.30am lorry
rams into back of bus, overturns and lands ditch in front of
bus spilling sand on the bus passengers outside”.
According to the time flow of the accidents, the lorry should
have seen the accidents earlier before it rams into the bus
and the driver should avoid it at that time, but he certainly
did not avoid the bus and hit it. It is an omission which the
lorry driver not performing the emergency brake or avoid
the bus (breach of duty), a failure to act can also occur in
this situation. For example, someone causes an accident
as a result of an omission, as for example when someone
fails to brake as traffic ahead slows, he/she can be
considered as legally liable for the injuries incurred. The
law generally determines that people have a duty to avoid
dangerous situations and to take action if someone is in
danger, which means that failure to do so can have legal
consequences if injuries occur.
Case Study Answer

12.  So, as for conclusion, I conclude that the lorry driver is the
one who should be liable for any damages that happen in
the accident, the most reason we can see in this situation
is omission by the lorry driver, an omission is often a
mistake which is innocent in nature and unintentional.
Even though the lorry driver is not guilty, but he omitted
and have to liable in this situations. The lorry driver has
breach the duty of care, by seeing on the responsible test
the lorry driver should have his own skill and knowledge
about controlling the lorry himself and the accident will not
getting worst if the lorry driver avoid the busses. So, finally
the lorry driver is a negligence and the driver must be
liable for any consequences and injuries that happen in the
situation.
Case Study Answer

13. THE END…..