Ainul, an eighteen-year-old learner driver, is driving on a busy main road frequented by pedestrians. Maidin, Ainul's father, supervises the driving lessons. Ainul refuses to heed Maidin's advice to slow down. To avoid a pedestrian darting into the lane, Ainul had to swerve. Because of Ainul's quick turn, another car driven by Joan and carrying John as a passenger changed lanes, climbed onto the pavement, and collided with the frontage of the NZ Curry House, causing significant damage. It's worth noting that section 52 of the Road Transport Act of 1987 states that if a motor vehicle is involved in an accident in which an individual is injured or property is destroyed, the driver must: a) stop the vehicle; and b) immediately render whatever assistance is needed. Maidin, who was not wearing a seatbelt, suffered head injuries and a broken leg as a result of Ainul's quick turn. Joan was taken to the emergency room of a nearby hospital after suffering a compound fracture of her leg. Joan suffered from a severe allergic reaction, which caused brain damage.

Does using the literal rule of statutory interpretation for section 52 of the Road Transport Act 1987 (Malaysia) provide a satisfactory outcome in this case? If yes, then why? If no, then which rule could also be applied and why?