Grab passenger who did not wear seat belt is 20% liable for his injuries in accident: Judge

by Rachel Morgan News Editor

A Grab‑car passenger sued the driver after a May 12, 2021 collision in which the driver ran a red light at the Anson Road‑Maxwell Road junction. While the driver was found to have breached his duty of care, District Judge Tay Jingxi determined the passenger, Mr Baek Jongwoo, was 20 per cent responsible for his own injuries because he did not wear a seat belt.

The incident and the court’s first findings

At about 8 pm, Mr Baek was seated in the rear of Mr John Susaretnam’s Grab‑car when the vehicle entered the intersection against a red signal and struck another car. Mr Baek, represented by Winston Low of Winston Low and Partners, claimed he was not given a chance to buckle his belt, arguing that the driver moved off in under a minute. He testified that 10 to 20 seconds elapsed before he attempted to fasten the belt, citing a backpack, an iPad and a possible phone check as reasons for the delay.

The judge noted that Mr Baek offered “little, if any, further explanation” for why that brief interval should preclude seat‑belt use, and held that the passenger’s duty to secure his belt arose before the vehicle moved.

Breaches by the driver

Evidence, including video footage, showed that Mr John did not exceed the speed limit, but the court confirmed three clear breaches of his duty of care:

  • Running the red traffic‑light signal
  • Failing to give way to the vehicle with right of way
  • Driving into the front passenger side of the other vehicle, causing the collision

These actions made the driver liable for the accident, though not for excessive speed.

Seat‑belt obligations under Singapore law

The judge referred to the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Wearing of Seat Belts) Rules 2011, which require every driver and passenger to wear a seat belt or lap belt. She emphasized that the rule applies even before a vehicle moves, as being on the road is “an inherently dangerous activity.” Citing a 1975 case that a “prudent man” should wear a seat belt “if he is wise,” Judge Tay stated that a prudent adult passenger should anticipate such risks and fasten the belt upon entry.

Did You Know? The principle that a “prudent man” should wear a seat belt was already articulated in a Singapore case as early as 1975.
Expert Insight: The ruling underscores that passenger safety is not solely the driver’s responsibility. By reinforcing contributory negligence, courts may encourage rideshare users to adopt basic protective habits, which could reduce injury severity and limit liability exposure for both drivers and platforms.

Frequently Asked Questions

What traffic violation did the driver commit?

Mr John Susaretnam entered the junction against a red traffic light, failing to give way to the vehicle with the right of way, which led to the collision.

Why was the passenger found partly liable?

The court held that Mr Baek’s failure to fasten his seat belt before the vehicle moved constituted contributory negligence, assigning him 20 per cent fault for his injuries.

Which rule governs seat‑belt use for passengers in Singapore?

The Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Wearing of Seat Belts) Rules 2011 require every driver and passenger to wear a seat belt or lap belt, and the duty arises before the vehicle starts moving.

How might this decision influence the behaviour of rideshare passengers in the future?

You may also like

Leave a Comment