Summary and Facts
SOCAR Mobility Malaysia Sdn Bhd v Gobalan a/l Arumugam & Ors [2026] 10 MLJ 541 concerned a fatal road accident caused by the failure of the brakes of a rental car. The trial court apportioned liability 90:10 against the rental provider, and both liability and the quantum of damages were challenged on appeal.
Legal Issues
Whether the rental provider was liable for the accident caused by the brake failure, and whether the 90:10 apportionment was correct.
Whether the injured passenger was entitled to pre-trial loss of earnings and loss of future earning capacity.
High Court’s Findings
The trial court's finding that the accident was caused by the car's brake failure was supported by the evidence and was not plainly wrong - the driver's and passenger's consistent accounts and the absence of skid marks pointed to brake failure.
The 90:10 apportionment of liability between the rental provider and the driver was affirmed, the driver's 10% reflecting his inappropriately high speed.
An adverse inference under s 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 was properly drawn against the provider for disposing of the wrecked car in haste instead of sending it for inspection.
As a rental car provider, the defendant owed a non-delegable duty to users of its cars and to third parties to ensure that its vehicles were roadworthy.
The injured passenger was awarded RM83,160 for pre-trial loss of actual earnings and RM399,168 for loss of future earning capacity, with interest.
Practical Implications
Vehicle rental and fleet operators owe a non-delegable duty to keep their vehicles roadworthy and cannot escape liability merely by pointing to the driver.
Disposing of key evidence before it can be inspected invites an adverse inference under s 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950.
Operators should preserve accident-involved vehicles for inspection and maintain robust maintenance records to rebut allegations of mechanical failure.