The document discusses whether the Public Works Department and Road Transport Department are liable for injuries suffered by Zainuri due to negligence. It analyzes the relevant laws on tortious liability and negligence of public officials. It then applies the laws to the facts, concluding the departments are liable for failing to repair potholes that caused the injuries.
The document discusses whether the Public Works Department and Road Transport Department are liable for injuries suffered by Zainuri due to negligence. It analyzes the relevant laws on tortious liability and negligence of public officials. It then applies the laws to the facts, concluding the departments are liable for failing to repair potholes that caused the injuries.
The document discusses whether the Public Works Department and Road Transport Department are liable for injuries suffered by Zainuri due to negligence. It analyzes the relevant laws on tortious liability and negligence of public officials. It then applies the laws to the facts, concluding the departments are liable for failing to repair potholes that caused the injuries.
The document discusses whether the Public Works Department and Road Transport Department are liable for injuries suffered by Zainuri due to negligence. It analyzes the relevant laws on tortious liability and negligence of public officials. It then applies the laws to the facts, concluding the departments are liable for failing to repair potholes that caused the injuries.
Whether the Public Works Department and Road Transport Department was liable under the tortious liability which is negligence that causes Zainuri to suffered injuries due to the negligence of the officers or workers of the Public Works Department and Road Transport Department?
LAW
Firstly ,the tort can be defined as any wrong acts that was conducted by people that includes negligence or infringement of rights .
According to Section 5 of Government Proceeding Act 1956, the government is liable
for any tortious act by the public officer such as negligence under the public official’s official capacity but however the public officer might be personally liable if they done their negligence under their personal capacity. Moreover , under the Section 5 of Government Proceeding Act 1956 , the tortfeasor must be the public official where as mention in Section 6(4) , the public official must be appointed by the government and their salary must be paid by government.Furthermore, the officer must act in good faith and they were acted under the official capacity which is was instructed by the government. In the case of Mohd Nor Afandi Mohamed Junus v Rahman Shah Alang Ibrahim & Anor , the plaintiff able to prove that government officer who was the driver for the lorry that was owned by the government.
In addition , according to Section 6(1) of Government Proceeding Act 1956 , there
should be a tort that was conducted by the public official before the liability of the government was attracted and the plaintiff should name the tortfeasor.But however , if the case was related to the breach of the statutory duty , it is not necessary for the plaintiff to name the concerned public official. In the case of Raymond Cheah v Jurutera Daerah, JKR Seberang Perai Tengah & Ors , the court held that since it was a statutory duty of the respondent to ensure the roads was maintained and was regularly inspects by them and carries out prompt and regularly repairs.Therefore , it is not necessary to identify the concerned public official and the appellant was entitled for the damages that was cause by the public official.
Lastly , the government may negate or limits its liability under any defences provided under the law. As mention in Section 7(1) of Government Proceeding act 1956 , in regardless of the fact that other provisions of this Act state otherwise, no legal action may be brought against the government for anything that has been done, specifically excluded to be done, or refused to be done in the performance of public duties by the government or any public officer. The only exception to this rule is actions brought for breach of contract meanwhile as mention in Section7(2) of Government Proceeding Act 1956 , the building, maintenance, division, and abandonment of railroads, roads, bridle-paths, or bridges are all considered to be "exercise of the public duties" for the purposes of Subsection (1). In the case of Raymond Cheah Choon Sing v Jurutera Daerah, Jabatan Kerja Raya, Seberang Perai Tengah & Ors, the court held that when sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 are viewed together, it states that the government or its officers exercising their public obligations in (a) the construction, maintenance of roads shall not be liable for any negligent acts. And just because a motorcyclist falls into a pothole and is injured doesn't mean the government is negligent.
APPLICATION
In applying the principles of the law of the present case , Zainuri must firstly proves that the public official that does the construction is a public official.The people that does the construction was a public official which is from Public Work Department and Road Transport Department whose appointed by the government and their salary was paid by the government.
Moreover , the public official was acted in good faith because they does the maintenance and construction which is a part of duty as a workers of Public Work Department and Road Transport Department.Furthermore , the public official was acted under the instruction or order of the government because construction and maintenance is a part of their duty to ensure the public safety for using the road.
In addition , Zainuri must prove that the public official which is from Public Work Department and Road Transport Department was negligent in order to attract the liability of the government . In this case , the public official or worker of the Public Work Department and Road Transport Department was negligent because they failed to put a warning signs about the potholes existence in the road , they failed to install a warning light if there is a potholes, they failed to repair the road and the patch potholes in the road and they also has exposing the users of the road to dangers.In this case , Zainuri was not necessary to name the tortfeasor because it involves the breach of statutory duty .But however , the government may negate or limits its liability under any defences provided under the law such as Section 7 of Government Proceeding Act 1956 . Where when the Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) was read together , the government was not liable for the negligence acts.It is because the government or its officers exercising their public duty to do construction and maintaining the road and the government has an imunnity from this act.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Public Work Department and Road Transport Department was liable under the tortious liability which is negligence that causes Zainuri to suffered injuries due to the negligence of the officers or workers of the Public Works Department and Road Transport Department because they failed to repair the road if they concerned there is potholes in the road.
