Driver at fault — full liability, no reduction

1 reported judgment · 1 court · how Singapore courts apportion liability

Across 1 reported Singapore judgment we analysed

Where one driver's dangerous conduct alone caused a collision, a Singapore court has declined to reduce the innocent party's recovery: in the grounded judgment in this corpus an intoxicated driver travelling against the flow of traffic was held 100% liable, with no liability attributed to the other driver.

How do Singapore courts split blame in driver at fault — full liability, no reduction?

Based on 1 grounded judgment. The breakdown below reports each decided judgment — the accident facts, what the court held on liability, and the verbatim line in which the court fixed the split.

How Singapore courts split blame in this scenario. Each row is the apportionment the court fixed in that judgment; the claimant/defendant percentages are the shares the court stated.

JudgmentApportionment (as decided)Source cases
[2026] SGDC 47 · SGDC
Claimant / injured party: 0% · Defendant / tortfeasor: 100%.
Defendant driver 100% liable / Claimant driver 0% — no contributory negligence

About this data — This scenario is grounded in 1 Singapore judgment(s) in our corpus (of which 0 applied a reduction and 1 found no contributory negligence) — fewer than three fully-reasoned apportionment decisions — so the figures below report those specific outcomes rather than an established range.

What did the courts decide?

[2026] SGDC 47
Wee Soon Wah v Syn Chevor Chee Meng Troy Anthony
29 January 2026
SGDC
Apportionment: Defendant driver 100% liable / Claimant driver 0% — no contributory negligence

What happened: A taxi driver was injured in a collision with a driver who was intoxicated and travelling against the flow of traffic.

What the court decided: The court rejected all three contentions that the taxi driver was contributorily negligent and held the other driver wholly responsible for the accident, attributing no liability to the claimant.

“Mr Syn is held 100 percent liable for the accident, with no liability attributed to Mr Wee.” — [2026] SGDC 47

Related

Source judgments

Every figure on this page is drawn from a reported Singapore judgment. The cases below are the primary sources; each links to its full judgment.

Compiled by the SG Case Law editorial team from primary sources — the judgments themselves and Singapore Statutes Online (sso.agc.gov.sg). · Updated 25 June 2026 · How we compile this

Last updated .