Jump to content

VIP & Rich can get out of any trouble easily? True?


Leepee
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNew...0603-68681.htmlOpen verdict on Victoria schoolboy's death

 

Elena Chong

Tue, Jun 03, 2008

The Straits Times

 

AN OPEN verdict was recorded on Tuesday on the death of a 16-year-old student after a road traffic accident last October.

 

Wrixon Chew Teck Cheng, a secondary 4 student of Victoria School, died of head injuries on Oct 17 - six days after the accident.

 

Assistant Commissioner of Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore Chin Li Fen, 48, was named a potential defendant at a coroner's inquiry into Wrixon's death.

 

She chose to remain silent.

 

The inquiry heard that the teen and two schoolmates were going to a tuition centre by bus after attending a graduation ceremony in school earlier on Oct 11.

 

Investigation showed that before Wrixon was knocked down by Ms Chin's car along Marine Parade Road, he had safely crossed to the centre divider using the pedestrian crossing when a red-man was showing.

 

After waiting for a moment Wrixon was seen fidgeting his body and laughing with his companion.

 

An eye witness had seen him turn his body for 180 degrees anti-clockwise and bend down with his upper part of the body protruding into the right lane.

 

Wrixon's companion, Arthur Lim Wei Quan, 16, said he then saw Wrixon running diagonally towards the bus stop when the accident happened.

 

State Coroner Victor Yeo said the evidence suggested that Wrixon could have failed to keep a proper lookout for any oncoming vehicles before he started to run back towards the bus stop.

 

He said the evidence adduced did not show any criminal negligence on the part of Ms Chin.

↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites

criminal negligence

 

is not equal to no negligence. this means she may not kena penal code and goto jail but dun mean she cannot b sued under tort.

 

this is smthg similar to the accident yesterday at TPY just outside the garden. pedestrain jaywalk and kena hit by a yellow suzuki swift. a car was behind the swift.. a march or latio or smthg. both appear to be straight no road marks. unker lie flat on the ground motionless.

 

the difference is that there is a traffic light. and near skool. so speed limit is still 50km/h. neber come across my mind at tat speed or lower can actually kill a person. mebbe faster speed...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes when i drive on the road, I get slightly paranoid. Accidents happen whether or not we like it, but one thing is for sure. If you get into an accident regardless whether you are at fault, you will get punishment. For any reason a man decides to kill himself and jumps onto the road, you 'did not keep a proper lookout'. For any reason a kid runs out to pick up a ball and you can't stop in time, you 'did not keep a proper lookout'. If a guy on motorbike slip and fall, and u can't stop in time, you 'did not keep a safe distance'.

 

Sometimes, its not whether that person is rich or famous. If you are in his/her position, you'll try all means to get out of it as well. I don't think anyone wants to bang someone down intentionally.

 

The accident already occured, the boy shouldnt be jay walking in first place. True enough, maybe the lady wasn't paying attention. Fault lies partially will both parties. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

no lah.. jump in front of car no guarantee mati one. now in thing is look for new station still virgin one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

in driving school, failure to look out for pedestrian may get an immediate failure...if so, i think the driver should be penalized and cannot get away scot free

Link to post
Share on other sites

I not sure about the legality of this but I thought if a person

 

chose to remain silent. then the court will see it in a negative light? [:|]

Link to post
Share on other sites

crossing when a red-man was showing

 

An eye witness had seen him turn his body for 180 degrees anti-clockwise and bend down with his upper part of the body protruding into the right lane.

 

Wrixon's companion, Arthur Lim Wei Quan, 16, said he then saw Wrixon running diagonally towards the bus stop when the accident happened.

 

All the above show the student obviously in the wrong, what has that got to do with the driver been VIP & Rich (btw, an Assistant commissioner is rich and VIP?). I also believe the kid belongs to a VIP & Rich family who gets into trouble easily [:p]

Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

interesting inside of who's who fr YCT site. but i take it with a pinch of salt and vinegar.... lipsrsealed.gif

 

 

also fr another site, apparently michael fay scratch daddy's car. goodness... ought to hv added another 2 extra cane.

Edited by Apollo
Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

the diff is... usually, if a car hit a person on the road... the driver is usually at fault. no matter what happened...

 

I still remember what happen few yrs back at Hougang Ave 3. a lady jaywalk and cross a 3 lane rd at Hougang Ave 3. The driver didnt see her, cos its block by the bus, by the time he saw her, she was only a few meters away... so, she was banged... flew to the bus and bang by the bus again...died on the spot...

 

so?? the driver kena jialat jialat... cant remember wat sentence but at least driving license gone case...

 

So?? is he at fault??

Edited by Tigershark1976
Link to post
Share on other sites

I not sure about the legality of this but I thought if a person

 

chose to remain silent. then the court will see it in a negative light? unimpressed.gif

She had probably been adviced by her counsel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supercharged

u nvr do a search...that time when this news came out...majority already said that she will get away lightly but not sure will her conscience let her live with it for the rest of their lives or not lipsrsealed.gifsly.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably this case is 50-50 - victim dashing across and driver not alert enough. Unfortunately(or rather fortunately) the victim need not sufferred if become paralysed while the driver may have to live with this nightmare and trauma.

 

We are all drivers, driving on the road. This acts of dashing across the road right infront of us is a nightmare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supercharged

i agree with u abt the driver's liability portion but sad to say, rich will hv the means to defend while the peasant will not especially if u happen to encounter a pedestrain dashing across those u hv taken the necessary precautions.

 

take for example the ruling came out by tp, 4 lane scenario. the weightage of onus depend on which lane u r in. e.g. if a pedestrain coming fm left, if u r in lane 4 (nearest to pedestrain), yr liability might be more as compared to u r on lane 3, 2 or even 1. with this ruling, tp did mention something like u hv to take precaution but if u had slow down considerably and the pedestrain still run across, u still r liable. how wld u feel if u happen to be the driver in this case? to me, i will feel injustice as pedestrain hv to be taught to be responsible for their own safety.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Careful arh bro, she's the Assistant Commissioner of Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore lipsrsealed.gif

 

aiya.. this one different... she is defendent facing a criminal charge, tat goalpenis nair was self pwned, go attack the judge.

 

itchy backside... ex-singaporean liao is not dissident. just drop the emotional burden and move on lor.

↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...