Road traffic accidents often turn on differing accounts of what happened. In some cases, the injured party cannot recall the incident at all.
In Pollmann v Ye Xianrong [2017] SGHC 229, the plaintiff was cycling along Brickland Road when the defendant’s car collided into the rear of his bicycle. The plaintiff suffered significant injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, and had no memory of the collision. The defendant accepted that he struck the bicycle but alleged that the plaintiff had contributed to the accident by “suddenly swerving” to the right.
See [3].
With no direct recollection from the plaintiff, the case turned on objective evidence.
GPS Data and Expert Analysis
The plaintiff’s bicycle was equipped with a GPS device that recorded speed, position, and cadence at one second intervals. The judgment addresses this evidence under the section titled “The GPS Data.”
See [29] onwards.
The GPS showed a rightward movement shortly before the collision. The defendant relied on this to support the allegation of a swerve. However, expert analysis of the cadence and speed data showed that at the moment of the rightward movement, the plaintiff’s cadence had slowed while his speed increased. This would not be consistent with the cyclist intentionally steering right under his own power.
The Court accepted this analysis and found that the rightward movement occurred after the collision, caused by the force of impact rather than by any act of the cyclist.
See [82]–[88].
Assessment of the Swerve Allegation
The defendant’s account was examined closely. The Court noted that the defendant did not testify that he had actually seen the plaintiff swerve.
See [14].
The Court further found that the allegation of a sudden swerve was raised later and did not appear in earlier accounts. It was treated as an afterthought.
See [16].
The primary facts also did not support any inference of a swerve by the plaintiff.
See [21].
Independent witnesses confirmed that the plaintiff had been riding in a consistent and stable manner.
See [24].
The allegation that the plaintiff failed to keep left was also rejected. The Court found that the plaintiff was cycling where he was supposed to be.
See [35] and [97].
The defendant acknowledged that he had been driving close to the cyclist, which limited his ability to avoid the collision even if a movement had occurred.
See [35].
Outcome
After reviewing the evidence, both expert and factual, the Court held that the plaintiff did not contribute to the accident. The defendant was found fully liable.
See [3].
Reflections
This case illustrates the role that objective electronic data can play in accident reconstruction. When a victim is unable to testify, GPS and other ride data may assist the Court in understanding how an incident occurred. Here, the information helped clarify the sequence of events and provided support for the Court’s findings based on the available evidence.
