Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by Midlusionz @ Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:00:37 +0800

Midlusionz — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:00:37 +0800

Talking about fair treatment by goverment LOL FUK U

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by yamizi @ Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:40:12 +0800

yamizi — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:40:12 +0800

I wonder can she sleep soundly at night or not.

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by domonkassyu @ Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:14:20 +0800

domonkassyu — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:14:20 +0800

Originally posted by googoomuck:

An article in the new paper today (Mon 24/01/2005). Now you be the judge.

US MILLIONAIRE IN CAR ACCIDENT AT SCOTTS ROAD
Driver ordered to pay $2m

THE jogger may have run right across the yellow traffic box junction outside Goodwood Park Hotel along Scotts Road and disregarded the pedestrian crossings.

Still, the Singapore driver who hit and killed him had to bear 45 per cent of the blame for the accident, the court found.

It turned out that the jogger was Mr Henry Adolphus Lassiter, 48, an American self-made millionaire who had a thriving technology company and assets worth nearly $40 million at the time of his death.

Now the Singapore driver, Madam To Keng Lam, a housewife, has been ordered by the Singapore High Court to pay the jogger's widow, Mrs Ann Masters Lassiter, US$1.3 million ($2.1 million), for the loss of her husband's support.

WORTH MILLIONS

Mr Lassiter was jogging near the hotel where he was staying when the accident happened on the morning of May 9, 1994. Madam To was driving her son to school at about 6.30am. Her son was then in Secondary 2 at Monk's Hill Secondary.

The traffic lights were in Madam To's favour. She was driving past the junction of Scotts Road/Stevens Road and Draycott Drive, when he ran across the yellow box junction in front of her car.

In her affidavit, she said, she jammed her brakes but could not stop in time.

He flew onto the car bonnet and hit his head on the windscreen, cracking it, before he landed on the road.

He died from serious head injuries on the spot.

Mr Lassiter was in Singapore on a business trip.

He was then running a real estate company and a technology start-up which was making millions of dollars.

His estate was valued at about US$39 million, and his annual pay in the year before he died, was said to be about US$479,000.

Shortly after the accident, his widow, Mrs Ann Masters Lassiter, who lives in Georgia in the US, sued Madam To for negligence, claiming the loss of her husband's support and loss of inheritance for herself and four of their daughters, who were then between 17 and 26 years old .

After which began a long-drawn battle over Mr Lassiter's financial worth and assets, to determine exactly how much money Madam To has to pay Mrs Lassiter.

On Jan 10 , Justice Woo Bih Li ruled that Madam To, alias Jeanette Toh, has to pay his widow, Mrs Ann Masters Lassiter US$130,000 a year, over 10 years, for the loss of her husband's support.

FINANCIAL TANGLE

He husband was an entrepreneur and while his property and technology businesses were taking off, the family 'lived in meagre circumstances as he re-invested the money in business.'

So he paid for the family's expenses, but liquidity was a problem as his money was tied up in his company and properties.

In her affidavit to the court, Mrs Lassiter said: 'The consequence of Henry's unanticipated death have been economically disastrous for my daughters and me in many ways.'

Looking at her annual expenses, including her daughters' school fees, Justice Woo decided that she should be given US$130,000 a year.

But for how many years?

Justice Woo said: 'In view of (Mr Lassiter's) good health and working habits as well as his very ambitious character, it was likely that he would have worked to 70 years old. He was killed when he was 48 years old...'

As such, Justice Woo decided that it was 'fair' for the driver to provide for Mrs Lassiter for 10 years.
Mrs Lassiter, who lives in the US, could not be reached for comment while Madam To, who lives in Mount Echo Park off Tanglin Road, declined to comment through her lawyer.

millionaire deserved to die..

however,the poor driver is not totally without fault..she should have look out for idiots on the road..

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by domonkassyu @ Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:10:38 +0800

domonkassyu — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:10:38 +0800

As they stood on the divider, however, Wrixon showed him a paper plate on which had been written well wishes by his schoolmates, and decided to pass it back to their friend at the bus stop.

He was hit by Ms Chin's car as he ran diagonally across the road.

Coroner Yeo, returning an open verdict, said evidence suggested that Wrixon could have failed to keep a proper lookout for oncoming vehicles.

the kid was stupid..stand on divider...and ran diagonally across the road..but the stupid kid was killed in cold blood...

as angel said..most likely he is driving at a rather high speed to not able slow down in time...

am totally amaze how evil the ruling govt can be to twist their own laws again to protect a civil servant that does not serve civilians as supposed to.

all motorists know they have to look out for pedestrains..not pedestrains have to look out for motorists..

law twisting fuc.kers

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by PRP @ Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:02:46 +0800

PRP — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:02:46 +0800

Googoo,

I believe civil & crimianl suit are different.Even the civil servant was cleared of criminal negligence,the other side can still initiate civil suit agaisnt her.

In the coroner inquiry,she could remain silent in court.But in the civil suit,of course she would have to defend herself.

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by googoomuck @ Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:18:43 +0800

googoomuck — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:18:43 +0800

Originally posted by kramnave:

Was this not a civil suit ?

The coroner has cleared senior civil servant Chin Li Fen of criminal negligence.

Civil proceedings rely on the coroner's verdict.

I think Wrixon 's next of kin has no chance in a civil lawsuit. It's already well known around the world that Singapore's justice is janus-faced.

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by 16/f/lonely @ Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:13:13 +0800

16/f/lonely — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:13:13 +0800

Oh well, safety is always a 2-way thing.

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by SBS7484P @ Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:11:11 +0800

SBS7484P — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:11:11 +0800

the ppl are already rich, still demand such compensation..

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by PRP @ Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:08:24 +0800

PRP — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:08:24 +0800

She should be charged for failing to make proper look out.Then the court can decide whehter she is gulity or not.

It is the duty for the police to prosecute her.It would be up to her employer to decide whether to dismiss her if she was guilty of a traffic offence.

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by pigsticker @ Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:16:18 +0800

pigsticker — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:16:18 +0800

yeah nayway, the topic is for a criminal case, while the one for the caucasian is for a civil case...

anyway, you don't know if the driver has lost her job.. for all you know, she might be looking for another job now...

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by kramnave @ Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:14:55 +0800

kramnave — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:14:55 +0800

Originally posted by pigsticker:

the way singaporeans cross the roads, is just waiting for accidents to happen...

No, its the drivers. That civil servant should get a ban...other countries..india, australia, china..the traffic is in a mess..but..somehow, some way...the drivers can siam or stop right in front of you even if they are reckless...they are always on the lookout..very impressive..coz they expect some idiot to anyhow jaywalk..

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by pigsticker @ Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:10:58 +0800

pigsticker — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:10:58 +0800

the way singaporeans cross the roads, is just waiting for accidents to happen...

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by kramnave @ Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:01:55 +0800

kramnave — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:01:55 +0800

Originally posted by googoomuck:

An article in the new paper today (Mon 24/01/2005). Now you be the judge.

US MILLIONAIRE IN CAR ACCIDENT AT SCOTTS ROAD
Driver ordered to pay $2m

THE jogger may have run right across the yellow traffic box junction outside Goodwood Park Hotel along Scotts Road and disregarded the pedestrian crossings.

Still, the Singapore driver who hit and killed him had to bear 45 per cent of the blame for the accident, the court found.

It turned out that the jogger was Mr Henry Adolphus Lassiter, 48, an American self-made millionaire who had a thriving technology company and assets worth nearly $40 million at the time of his death.

Now the Singapore driver, Madam To Keng Lam, a housewife, has been ordered by the Singapore High Court to pay the jogger's widow, Mrs Ann Masters Lassiter, US$1.3 million ($2.1 million), for the loss of her husband's support.

WORTH MILLIONS

Mr Lassiter was jogging near the hotel where he was staying when the accident happened on the morning of May 9, 1994. Madam To was driving her son to school at about 6.30am. Her son was then in Secondary 2 at Monk's Hill Secondary.

The traffic lights were in Madam To's favour. She was driving past the junction of Scotts Road/Stevens Road and Draycott Drive, when he ran across the yellow box junction in front of her car.

In her affidavit, she said, she jammed her brakes but could not stop in time.

He flew onto the car bonnet and hit his head on the windscreen, cracking it, before he landed on the road.

He died from serious head injuries on the spot.

Mr Lassiter was in Singapore on a business trip.

He was then running a real estate company and a technology start-up which was making millions of dollars.

His estate was valued at about US$39 million, and his annual pay in the year before he died, was said to be about US$479,000.

Shortly after the accident, his widow, Mrs Ann Masters Lassiter, who lives in Georgia in the US, sued Madam To for negligence, claiming the loss of her husband's support and loss of inheritance for herself and four of their daughters, who were then between 17 and 26 years old .

After which began a long-drawn battle over Mr Lassiter's financial worth and assets, to determine exactly how much money Madam To has to pay Mrs Lassiter.

On Jan 10 , Justice Woo Bih Li ruled that Madam To, alias Jeanette Toh, has to pay his widow, Mrs Ann Masters Lassiter US$130,000 a year, over 10 years, for the loss of her husband's support.

FINANCIAL TANGLE

He husband was an entrepreneur and while his property and technology businesses were taking off, the family 'lived in meagre circumstances as he re-invested the money in business.'

So he paid for the family's expenses, but liquidity was a problem as his money was tied up in his company and properties.

In her affidavit to the court, Mrs Lassiter said: 'The consequence of Henry's unanticipated death have been economically disastrous for my daughters and me in many ways.'

Looking at her annual expenses, including her daughters' school fees, Justice Woo decided that she should be given US$130,000 a year.

But for how many years?

Justice Woo said: 'In view of (Mr Lassiter's) good health and working habits as well as his very ambitious character, it was likely that he would have worked to 70 years old. He was killed when he was 48 years old...'

As such, Justice Woo decided that it was 'fair' for the driver to provide for Mrs Lassiter for 10 years.
Mrs Lassiter, who lives in the US, could not be reached for comment while Madam To, who lives in Mount Echo Park off Tanglin Road, declined to comment through her lawyer.

Was this not a civil suit ?

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by SingaporeTyrannosaur @ Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:19:20 +0800

SingaporeTyrannosaur — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:19:20 +0800

I think we need to compare to similar cases to draw any kind of a conclusion.

If I remember correctly, there are cases in which people have caused a fatal accident, and not blamed for it in here, but they are rare.

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by PRP @ Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:54:07 +0800

PRP — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:54:07 +0800

I can think of one reason why the senior IRAS officer was not charged.If she is charged & found guilty,she might have to be dismissed from govt services.Maybe the police and AG made this consideration.

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by HyperFocal @ Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:48:01 +0800

HyperFocal — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:48:01 +0800

... this incident smacks of FAVORTISM...period.

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by PRP @ Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:43:53 +0800

PRP — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:43:53 +0800

SPH is a private organisation althou it is headed by a former govt minister.

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by Gutentaginator @ Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:29:55 +0800

Gutentaginator — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:29:55 +0800

My chinese singapore friend chatted with me and told me that there is a mandarin news paper editor who is also in the limelight for fatally hitting a old man on a motorbike. His pillion driver was his maid who was killed on the spot.

I am not sure if you guys in singapore know about this news which was released today.

At around the same period, 2 high profile people working for ... is in the limelight.

What a coincidence.

I have been reading a great book called animal farm.

must read!

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by PRP @ Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:19:11 +0800

PRP — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:19:11 +0800

Usually drivers are wrong if they knock down a person.The problem is a driver would not honestly tell the truth even if he is at fault.So i think the police has no choice but to prosecute all drivers who knock down ppl on the roads.

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by pearlie27 @ Fri, 06 Jun 2008 22:00:03 +0800

pearlie27 — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 22:00:03 +0800

I don’t know if this is true. A driving instructor once told me that Sg’s traffic laws were not favourable to drivers esp if it involved hitting on someone. Drivers were expected to drive with caution and thus able to stop on time to avoid knocking on anyone any time and under whatever circumstances. Drivers would be culpable even in situation one least expect like a small kid dashing out from nowhere.

Maybe now with the ft and elite rules have changed.

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by PRP @ Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:07:46 +0800

PRP — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:07:46 +0800

The case was in coroner court.Usually,the police would prosecute the driver.

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by googoomuck @ Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:17:49 +0800

googoomuck — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:17:49 +0800

Originally posted by eagle:

Well, the article also suggests that he ran diagonally across the road. Which pedestrian crossing around Marine Parade cuts diagonally across? The car could have been planning to slow down before the pedestrian crossing, and not expect that the student would cut diagonally. It could be a sudden motion. Again, what would you think would be a safe speed, that if you hit a human, you will not be flung 10m? Do you really think 10m is very far? A normal adult giving you a very hard push can easily push you back by 2 metres or more. We are now talking about a car vs a human. So how? Travel at 10km/h best for you along the whole stretch of road? Or 20km/h?

As I have already mentioned, any one of us can easily give reasons why she is in the wrong, but any one of us could also easily give reasons why it could be unavoidable.

I'm not saying that she should or should not be guilty. What I mean is that this article doesn't offer sufficient information.

No one is going to specify that x mph is safe speed. In a highway, high speed is actually the preferable safe speed because it's purpose is to ease congestion(not ERP) and to save time for road travellers.

As the definition states, it's the speed that allows a driver sufficient time to take action to avoid an accident (and at sea, to avoid a collision. In the air, it's about altitute). It also imply that the distance must be taken into consideration when assessing safe speed.

As a defendant, she chose to remain silent. Was she talking over a HP or did she jammed on the brakes and left tire marks on the road? How do the readers know that the judge is unbiased when he ruled in favour of the defendant?

I wish that the victim's family has the means to engage a lawyer to seek at least monetary compensation. Coming from a good school, the son could have become a doctor if he grew up and live to be 100 years old as medicine is progressing with time.

Ah, but this is only a dream if the victim did not come from a prominent family.

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by eagle @ Fri, 06 Jun 2008 07:03:42 +0800

eagle — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 07:03:42 +0800

Originally posted by googoomuck:

When his friend was crossing the road, the green man signal was flashing but the pilot said that it was clearly red at the time of impact.

The traffic light would have been red and had just turned green. Here was a car that hit the student and flung him 10 m away as reported in ST, 24 April 2008. The evidence suggested that she was anticipating that the light would have turned green by the time her car reached the traffic junction and so did not slow down. Was she not driving at unsafe speed?

Anyway it's a kangaroo court. Don't expect much fairness. The headline says Top Iras official not to blame for fatal crash . Top Iras official, get it?

Well, the article also suggests that he ran diagonally across the road. Which pedestrian crossing around Marine Parade cuts diagonally across? The car could have been planning to slow down before the pedestrian crossing, and not expect that the student would cut diagonally. It could be a sudden motion. Again, what would you think would be a safe speed, that if you hit a human, you will not be flung 10m? Do you really think 10m is very far? A normal adult giving you a very hard push can easily push you back by 2 metres or more. We are now talking about a car vs a human. So how? Travel at 10km/h best for you along the whole stretch of road? Or 20km/h?

As I have already mentioned, any one of us can easily give reasons why she is in the wrong, but any one of us could also easily give reasons why it could be unavoidable.

I'm not saying that she should or should not be guilty. What I mean is that this article doesn't offer sufficient information.

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by googoomuck @ Fri, 06 Jun 2008 04:42:41 +0800

googoomuck — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 04:42:41 +0800

Originally posted by balance_else_complacent:

The TS may only find answers when he can access the record books about cases.

If there is same kind of situation case, and the result different then that is the answer.

If not, that is also the answer.

Only records can tell.

There should be sufficient examples to compare, i guess.

An article in the new paper today (Mon 24/01/2005). Now you be the judge.

US MILLIONAIRE IN CAR ACCIDENT AT SCOTTS ROAD
Driver ordered to pay $2m

THE jogger may have run right across the yellow traffic box junction outside Goodwood Park Hotel along Scotts Road and disregarded the pedestrian crossings.

Still, the Singapore driver who hit and killed him had to bear 45 per cent of the blame for the accident, the court found.

It turned out that the jogger was Mr Henry Adolphus Lassiter, 48, an American self-made millionaire who had a thriving technology company and assets worth nearly $40 million at the time of his death.

Now the Singapore driver, Madam To Keng Lam, a housewife, has been ordered by the Singapore High Court to pay the jogger's widow, Mrs Ann Masters Lassiter, US$1.3 million ($2.1 million), for the loss of her husband's support.

WORTH MILLIONS

Mr Lassiter was jogging near the hotel where he was staying when the accident happened on the morning of May 9, 1994. Madam To was driving her son to school at about 6.30am. Her son was then in Secondary 2 at Monk's Hill Secondary.

The traffic lights were in Madam To's favour. She was driving past the junction of Scotts Road/Stevens Road and Draycott Drive, when he ran across the yellow box junction in front of her car.

In her affidavit, she said, she jammed her brakes but could not stop in time.

He flew onto the car bonnet and hit his head on the windscreen, cracking it, before he landed on the road.

He died from serious head injuries on the spot.

Mr Lassiter was in Singapore on a business trip.

He was then running a real estate company and a technology start-up which was making millions of dollars.

His estate was valued at about US$39 million, and his annual pay in the year before he died, was said to be about US$479,000.

Shortly after the accident, his widow, Mrs Ann Masters Lassiter, who lives in Georgia in the US, sued Madam To for negligence, claiming the loss of her husband's support and loss of inheritance for herself and four of their daughters, who were then between 17 and 26 years old .

After which began a long-drawn battle over Mr Lassiter's financial worth and assets, to determine exactly how much money Madam To has to pay Mrs Lassiter.

On Jan 10 , Justice Woo Bih Li ruled that Madam To, alias Jeanette Toh, has to pay his widow, Mrs Ann Masters Lassiter US$130,000 a year, over 10 years, for the loss of her husband's support.

FINANCIAL TANGLE

He husband was an entrepreneur and while his property and technology businesses were taking off, the family 'lived in meagre circumstances as he re-invested the money in business.'

So he paid for the family's expenses, but liquidity was a problem as his money was tied up in his company and properties.

In her affidavit to the court, Mrs Lassiter said: 'The consequence of Henry's unanticipated death have been economically disastrous for my daughters and me in many ways.'

Looking at her annual expenses, including her daughters' school fees, Justice Woo decided that she should be given US$130,000 a year.

But for how many years?

Justice Woo said: 'In view of (Mr Lassiter's) good health and working habits as well as his very ambitious character, it was likely that he would have worked to 70 years old. He was killed when he was 48 years old...'

As such, Justice Woo decided that it was 'fair' for the driver to provide for Mrs Lassiter for 10 years.
Mrs Lassiter, who lives in the US, could not be reached for comment while Madam To, who lives in Mount Echo Park off Tanglin Road, declined to comment through her lawyer.

Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member? replied by ChoCoChips @ Fri, 06 Jun 2008 04:31:11 +0800

ChoCoChips — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 04:31:11 +0800

i tot usually is 人比车大 leh.

now 车比人大？

Recent Posts in 'Would It Be Different, If it Was Just Public Member?' | sgForums.com