Araveanthan and Another v Nippon Pigment (S) Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 01 February 1992
• Neutral Citation: [1992] SGHC 20
• Docket Number: Suit No 5284 of 1986
• Date: 01 February 1992
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1992
• Plaintiff Counsel: Bhargavan Sujatha (Bhargavan & Co)
• Citation: [1992] SGHC 20
• Defendant Counsel: Martin Lee (Goh Poh & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: All special damages incurred at about same time,Permanent handicap,Tort,Damages,Personal injuries cases,Negligence,Loss of earning capacity,s 24 Factories Act (Cap 104),Breach of statutory duty,Absolute duty,Plaintiff still employed by defendant,Measure of damages,Interest,Duty of care,6% interest rate awarded,Pain, suffering and loss of amenity,3% rate as median not applicable,Special damages in personal injury claim,Failure to maintain safeguards and machinery,Possibility of disadvantage in the labour market when plaintiff leaves defendant's employment

Cur Adv Vult

This claim arises from an industrial accident on 11 October 1985, in which the first plaintiff, an infant, was severely injured. He sues by his father and next friend for damages in respect of the injuries, pain and suffering and consequential loss suffered by him as a result of his accident, on the grounds that the accident was caused by the defendant`s negligence and/or breach of statutory duty.

The defendant was manufacturing plastic synthetic resins and plastic materials at 7A Pioneer Road, Jurong Industrial Estate at premises which were a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act (Cap 104) (`the Act`). On those premises was a power-operated Meiki plastic injection moulding machine which was used to produce reference plastic colour plates. The Meiki machine has a movable gate guard that looks like a metal tunnel covering the moving and stationary moulds. Seen from the side of the machine, it is a square arch in cross-section. Seen from the front, it moves from side to side on runners. On the front runner at the right-hand end is a microswitch. There is a similar microswitch on the rear runner, but this is half-way along, not at the end. The gate guard on the machine has a handle on it. It is always opened and closed by hand and the plates are always removed by hand. When the gate guard is fully closed, then seen from the front, it is all the way to the right and its front foot then comes into contact with the front microswitch. In this position, the rear foot of the gate guard just breaks contact with the microswitch on the rear runner. Conversely, as the gate guard is opened, moving to the left, its front foot breaks contact with the front microswitch and the rear foot comes into and maintains contact with the rear microswitch. The result is that the gate guard acts, and is clearly intended to act, as an automatic safety device. Closing it activates the moving mould to close and mate with the stationary mould in about two seconds. When the gate guard is open, and this is most important, the moving mould is supposed to remain stationary so long as the rear microswitch is working properly, even if the front microswitch is somehow activated.

At the relevant time, the first plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a machine operator. His duties as such were, inter alia, to remove plates from the Meiki machine after they had been produced. The first plaintiff originally worked for the defendant as a quality control operative and did not have to handle any machines. After a month, he was told to work on the Meiki machine. He learnt to operate it on-the-job while assisting E, the man in overall charge of the injection moulding machines. In three or four weeks, he was operating the machine and removing the plates by himself. At about 1.45pm on 11 October 1985, while the gate guard was open and the first plaintiff was removing a plate from the machine, the moving mould, instead of remaining stationary as it might have been expected to, suddenly moved and closed on his right hand. He instinctively used his left hand to operate the control panel on his left-hand side, the moving mould retracted and he pulled out his injured right hand. As a result of the accident, his right index, middle and ring fingers had to be completely amputated.

The first plaintiff testified that the following incident had happened after lunch on the day of the accident, when he was assisting E, who was operating the machine. As E was taking the second plate from the machine, the moulds hit each other, damaging the plate. E was unhurt and the first plaintiff asked him why this happened. E answered rather cryptically that the first plaintiff knew nothing about the machine and that he, E, would operate it. E then operated the switch on the control panel so that the moulds would separate and then removed the plate. He continued operating the machine and removing the plates from it for another ten minutes or so before going to the office, instructing the first plaintiff to continue operating the machine and to take out the plates. Left to himself, the first plaintiff obeyed E`s instructions and all went as usual for the first two plates he took. The accident occurred as he was removing the third plate. He testified that he did not touch the front microswitch.

The first important issue is whether the rear microswitch was faulty, and the machine was not functioning as it should. The day after the accident, an inspector was called in to check the machine. He did not order cessation of its use. Nevertheless, to allay the fears of other workers, an engineer was later called in from the manufacturers of the machine and he also checked it. He did not locate any specific fault in the machine but recommended installing an extra microswitch in front. This was done a few months later. There is no evidence of the reasons why this recommendation was made. Only the Meiki engineer who made the recommendation could give direct evidence of his reasons for making that recommendation, and he was not called as a witness. There was no explanation of why he was not called, nor was there even an attempt to put in evidence any written statement or report by him. Given that the machine was designed to ensure that normally nothing should cause the moulds to close when the gate guard was open, the mere fact that the mould moved while the gate guard was open was, in my opinion, sufficient to indicate that the machine was somehow not functioning as it should.

The second issue pertaining to liability for either common law negligence or breach of statutory duty is whether the fault in the machine caused the accident. At the time of the accident, the first plaintiff was standing quite close to the machine so that, it was said, his stomach was near to the front microswitch. The defendant contended that there was a strong possibility that the first plaintiff himself depressed the front microswitch while acting in haste to make up for time lost through alleged malingering, and was thus contributorily negligent. However, the first plaintiff denied throughout that he had touched that microswitch. In my view, even if the first plaintiff had somehow depressed the front microswitch, the moving mould should, nevertheless, have remained stationary because the gate guard was open. That was the whole point of the gate guard system. It cannot be said that the first plaintiff should have his claim reduced because he did what the system was designed to render safe. So long as the gate guard was open, he was entitled to rely on there being no ill consequences, even if the front microswitch was depressed. Furthermore, there was no allegation that, if he depressed the front microswitch, he did so other than inadvertently, and there is ample authority for inadvertent acts being insufficient to constitute...