Singaporeans might have goldfish memory, but ten years down the road, they’d still remember this incident that has ended 2018 with a bang:
Lest you’re not aware, the dispute might have ended in the online world, but in the eyes of the law, it has just begun.
A day after the incident, both of them were called to a police station.
This morning (16 January 2019), both of them attended court and the verdict is out: both face two charges each.
Lorry Driver’s Charges
The lorry driver faces a charge of causing hurt through negligent behaviour, and surprisingly also another charge of not making a report within 24 hours of a car accident.
Lest you’re not aware, if two parties agree on a private settlement and there’s no injuries or damage to public property, they can agree on what is known as a “private settlement”—usually, they will sign a form so that one party won’t go back on his or her words and make an insurance claim after that.
So…you can guess why it’s “surprising” because of this…
…when, according to the lorry driver back then, the cyclist didn’t request for any compensation.
Cyclist’s Charges
On the other hand, the cyclist is charged with not cycling to the side of the lane and also mischief.
That is, well, not surprising.
The cyclist donned a formal shirt and pants this morning while the lorry driver dressed like an uncle in a red Polo-T. Not sure why this is relevant but my boss’s always in formal and he’s the villain in the office #justsaying
Lorry Driver Intends to Plead Guilty; Cyclist Undecided
According to Zaobao, the lorry driver intends to plead guilty, while the cyclist has not made up his mind on whether to plead guilty.
For causing hurt due to negligent, the lorry driver could be jailed for up to three months and/or $1,500 fine.
For mischief, the punishment could be an imprisonment of up to one year and/or fine. If the damage is more than $500, it could be increased to up to two years. However, do note that the lorry driver has specifically mentioned that he changed the side mirror for mere $15.
Their case would be mentioned again on 30 January 2019.
Here’s a simplified summary of the South Korea martial law that even a 5-year-old would understand:
Read Also:
- Salon Allegedly Charged $880 Treatment Package to Elderly Who Has Hearing Difficulties
- Man Replaces M’sia-Registered Car With a S’pore Plate & Drives It Without a Driving Licence
- Confirmed: Allianz Withdraws Its Offer to Buy Income Insurance
- 10th Floor Resident Leaves Baby Stroller On Air Conditioner Compressor
- $400 Worth of Durians Delivered to Customer; Customer Allegedly Takes Durians Without Making Payment
- Woman Borrows Touch ‘N Go Card From S’pore Driver to Cross JB Checkpoint & Didn’t Return Card
Advertisements
