News and views from an unique perspective

Lawyers acting for Ma Chi’s family blame crash on ‘poor traffic conditions’

Posted by temasektimes on September 20, 2012

The fatal accident at Bugis caused by PRC Ferrari driver Ma Chi was blamed on ‘poor traffic conditions’ and therefore ‘unintended’ by the lawyers acting for his family.

In documents filed in High Court on Tuesday, the Ma family’s lawyers from Drew & Napier LLC argued that the placement of the traffic lights at the junction “made it difficult for motorists to spot the traffic signals readily and easily”, among other reasons.

This led to vehicles having a “high likelihood” of failing to comply with traffic lights that just turned red against them and therefore the actions of Ma Chi were “unintended, unexpected and/or fortuitous”.

In the defence and counter-claim filed by AXA, its lawyers from United Legal Alliance LLC said that the crash was “highly probable, foreseeable and to be expected”.

The insurer’s lawyers also said that the incident was due to a “collision”, and not an accident.

In the insurance industry, this means that the driver was aware that his actions would cause an accident, thereby voiding the insurer’s liability to make a payout.

A video clip which is widely circulated online showed Ma Chi’s Ferrari speeding and beating the red light before crashing into a Hyundai Sonata taxi causing the deaths of its driver Cheng Teck Hock and Japanese driver Shigemi Ito.



48 Responses to “Lawyers acting for Ma Chi’s family blame crash on ‘poor traffic conditions’”

  1. Daft Peasant said

    Ha ha ha ha ha……………….the MC’s lawyer 还真能掰…….

  2. Shitizen said

    Bullshit! the ‘traffic condition’ has been there for so many years and no motorist ever complained. Thank god we have the video, otherwise we’ll never see the truth! at the speed that ma chi is going at, even wanna stop also cannot.

  3. Redman said

    Wonder how much the lawyer is paid…

  4. P Koh said

    I really find it very difficult to stomach that a collision is not an accident and as long as the event is fortuitous and unintended, the incident shouldin all faieness be admissible as a legitimate claim under the policy. Who would in his right frame of mind want to risk hurting himself or even sacrifice one’s life and intentionally go against the red light? Furthermore there was a passenger in the vehicle to reckon with. More so, it was just a matter of poor judgement which has proven to be a very costly one. You may term it as a negligent act and being so, isn’t insurance policies cut out for this purpose or eventuality so long as it is not intentional or fraudulent in nature. The driver is deceased now and how are the authorities or lawyers going to determine whether beating the red lights was intentional or not. If insurers could succeed in this case to avoid liability for “collision”, the insurance industry must surely take a serious relook at the way motor insurance is sold as it will open the floodgates for many more disputes to be settled in the courts since all accidents involve ‘collision’ of some sorts. Insurers are just wasting money to contest this case.

  5. Pink Panty Loong said

    Why of course! Cos he’s not looking at the traffic! He’s too busy fingering the lady besides him!

  6. Karen said

    Lawyer’s argument is the same as arguing that frequent flooding (“ponding”) in Singapore is due to “poor weather conditions” and not the result of poor planning by PAP.

  7. Bai Hu said

    When he was driving at that deafening speed, of course everywhere is in ‘poor conditions’!!!

  8. Temasek (Shitty) Times said

    Well, let’s see it from the other angle…….. if you really want a contest, things like this has to be spouted? It is tolerated…. come on and be open minded….. just like how we allowed / tolerated the nonsense spouted by Temasek (Shit) Times……

  9. Ben said

    Traveling at that kind of speed.. of course it is difficult to spot the traffic signals.

  10. Not A Lawyer said

    those lawyers are mercenaries – it’s not their interest nor business to defend the ‘RIGHT’ but to defend their clients who pay their bills. So, in a nutshell. generally speaking, these homo sapiens will do anything to ensure they get the highest payout with the gift of their gap. Many times, they become absolute IDIOTS only with LLB titles. Common sense dictates and common folks see clearly that it’s not a case of ‘traffic conditions’ but MAN-MADE condition at 180kmh beating 6-8 traffic lights. Which GOONDOO dare come out in open to declare it’s traffic condition?! Those lawyers have no conscience, eyes blinded by $$$, brains conveniently stuffed with lies. I wld say they are getting anywhere between 15% – 30% of payout(rough guess), so the higher they managed to wrangle for MC’s family, the RICHER they become – but i will say they r poorer already whether they win or lose. It’s a LOST cause. My take. And to be very careful I hv to add this famous phrase – I STAND CORRECTED!

  11. KOmae said

    There are many car owners like me closely following this case as we know the verdict will set precedent and affect us.

  12. Iceman said

    if you want to “LIE” find a good reason … if not why don’t you Go To HELL

  13. Merlion said

    Well, lawyers are supposed to be impartial and stand for JUSTICE. In this case, Drew and Napier has clearly miss the mark!! Today lawyers are there to make money!!

  14. Wong said

    If what the lawyer said is true , than why it did not happened to others road users who used the same road ? Simply RIDICULOUS !

  15. Wow!! now let’s watch this show progress. Let’s see how the big boys wiggle their way out of an already clear cut case.

    We can see from all this that “Justice” seemed to work well for the rich.
    Just look at how the “English Language” is being played here.
    Now we know why lawyers are known as liars.
    Lawyers are able to take simplicity and mould it into the most complex of things.

    Question is…. Is our justice system “Just” for everyone or only the rich.
    This is opening a whole new can of worms here.
    But just look at how the lawyers of the accuse and the Insurance company are playing this out.
    Both pushing responsibility to the other when both are equally responsible.

    I am just appalled here looking at where this case is moving towards when two fathers and a daughter is dead.

  16. Is the lawyers even drivers? In places of ‘poor traffic conditions’, the right action is to slow down and not speed up.

  17. GodBlessSG said

    Going at that speed, there’s no road in this world that has “good traffic conditions”. Period.

  18. Confucius said

    There is no more humanity in this sinking land, all are going for the money against their code of practice and nothing else.

  19. Wong said

    How many road users is traveling along the road everyday , and why accident did not hapened to others road users except him ? Lame excuse ! Please do some soul searching . Dude 😜

  20. Robin hood said

    Aiyah! A bit late the hungry ghost month just over. Should have asked late Ma Chi to testify. Easier for the mediums. Now still can but quite difficult as ghosts are back in hell. Not easy get them out. A lot of red and yellow tapes.

  21. James said

    drive so fast still can see the light meh!

  22. Ken Lee said

    what is the speed limit in express way?

    • Ken Lee said

      someone jump from 40 floor building and die. also can claim! cause building is build to high!

      • What nonsense! said

        Well, based on the same logic, it must be the poor street lights that make that person unsure if he was on ground floor or 40th floor, and as he stepped out he dropped from the 40th floor. Not intended to die!!

  23. Commando Pants said

    The words, “your taking the piss!”spring to mind… when I’m unsure of traffic conditions, I drive with caution and maintain a level of high alert – not at hight speed with naked ‘ho’s in my car playing with my balls…

  24. oh really said

    DN knows they have no chance and so they made a half-hearted argument. They might as well blame for the taxi driver for being there.

  25. Singaporean said

    That speed without braking is as good as manslaughter

  26. Ron said

    The issue is not whether Ma drove at high speed. It is about an insurance company renegading on its policy after an accident and using clever ways to deny paying. It can set an ugly precedent…. one is short-sighted and hence should have got prescription glasses, one was overly stressed at work and did not pay attention to driving, one is suffering from grief beause a relative has just died (should not drive).

    So where do we end when insurers can give their interpretation after an accident? The insurers can sue the estate but should not unilaterally state they will send the claims to the insured estate.

    • Observer said

      So you suggest the insurer should pay? Come on Ron, you gotta be fair. I can understand your logic, but for the case of Ma Chi, why should the insurance company pay? If they do, they too will start an ugly precedent. Anyone sucidal could also drive 300km/h along the same stretch of road and the family could make the insurance company pay.Why not you be the insurer? I think you are the one who is short sighted.

      • Ron said

        It is silly to make a dare….why not be the insurer. You will know that Insurance firms do not emerge from nooks and corners. They are large firms and have to comply with rules.

        Why should not the insurer pay? They can insist on all cars be limited in speeds to say 130 kph, that cars have sensors that will cut back on engine power if one is beating the red lights, etc. Yeah, they have great powers to deny issuing an insurance but once a contract is made, they cannot be doing the post-accident back-tracking.

        I am a driver too and I do not want my insurer to act in such a high-handed fashion. We can open a pandora box… your credit card is hijacked…it is your fault too. Your house was broken into…it your fault too. We do not need to defend the insurers. They make tons of profits. I am looking forward to the wisdom of the Court.

      • second observer said

        perhaps Ron has bought himself a ferrari and plans to attempt Ma Chi’s out-of-this-world driving skill ?

  27. NaBey said

    I don’t care WTF who is right or wrong! I just care that AXA must not compensate!! Because if they were to compensate, their profits will be lesser and GIA will then say that motor insurance premiums across all will increase due to claim $ is getting more!
    ONLY STUPID singapore have such a farking system. Everybody stand to gain, loser is always citizens, motorists! FARK !!!

  28. Singapuraboi said

    Driving at that speed, no matter how well placed traffic lights and signals r, they’d all be a blur. If the judge admits this, he is definitely incompetent.

  29. Aiyah it’s not the traffic condition, it’s because there are too much hair on my arse! See the logic?

  30. Jeff said


  31. Lim said

    These super rich foreigners who buy super cars are let in liberally, usually with no questions asked where their millions came from. They kill innocents on road – then slap the welcoming host for poor traffic road conditions/lights. Then the insurance shoot them back using legal semantics to avoid payout. Devil slap devil, fight devil – who will shed a tear for the Sporean taxi-driver?

  32. Cher said

    In fact I was a little surprise that the PRC family did not sue the taxi driver for failing to give way to a more expensive car!

  33. Common Cents said

    Boycott this law firm! Who are they ah? Trying to blame poor Singaporeans for the mistakes of this FT

  34. mochi said

    strange as to why they did not try to take the video down

  35. biccherry said

    The traffic conditions at the Bugis/ Rochor road area were poor- BUT only in comparison to the F1 road race conditions that Ma Chi imagined he was participating in…

  36. poor traffice condition said

    poor traffice condition , I do agree to some extent

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: