BNJ (suing by her lawful father and litigation representative, B) v SMRT Trains Ltd and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Vinodh Coomaraswamy JC (as he then was)
• Judgment Date: 31 December 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] SGHC 286
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 11 March 2013,01 November 2012,02 November 2012,09 November 2012,06 November 2012,31 October 2012,29 October 2012,08 November 2012,07 November 2012,30 October 2012,20 November 2012,05 November 2012,19 November 2012
• Docket Number: Suit No 432 of 2011
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Cosmas Stephen Gomez and Mr Subbiah Pillai (Cosmas LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Anparasan s/o Kamachi, Ms Grace Tan and Mr Tan Wei Ming (KhattarWong LLP)
• Subject Matter: Tort,negligence,breach of duty,occupier's liability,who is an occupier,res ipsa loquitur,breach of statutory duty,essential factors,Contract,contractual terms,implied terms
• Published date: 30 January 2018

Vinodh Coomaraswamy J:

On 3 April 2011, a train coming into the Ang Mo Kio MRT station (“AMK Station”) struck the plaintiff, causing her tragic and life-changing injuries. She was then just fourteen years old. In these proceedings, she seeks damages from two defendants for the injuries she suffered on that day. The first defendant is SMRT Trains Ltd (“SMRT”). SMRT is a public transport operator and holds the license to operate the mass rapid transit (“MRT”) system along the North-South line. SMRT operates AMK Station and the train which injured the plaintiff. The second defendant is the Land Transport Authority of Singapore (“the LTA”). The LTA is a statutory board charged with regulating, amongst other things, Singapore’s MRT system. The LTA is the owner of AMK Station and regulates SMRT’s operations.

The plaintiff is injured on 3 April 2011

The plaintiff arrived in Singapore on 14 March 2011¹ to study English. Her course was scheduled to end on 8 April 2011. She lived while in Singapore with a host family in Ang Mo Kio. She commuted from Ang Mo Kio to her place of study at Peninsula Plaza each weekday by MRT via the North-South line from AMK Station to City Hall MRT station.

3 April 2011 was a Sunday. The plaintiff arranged to meet friends for lunch at a shopping mall close to City Hall station. She left her host family’s flat at 10:40 am and arrived at AMK Station at about 11:00 am². Closed-circuit television (“CCTV”) footage from AMK Station shows her walking on to the platform at 11:04 am³ and waiting for a train. Just as the train pulls into the station, the plaintiff falls face forward over the edge of the platform on to the tracks. The train driver applies the emergency brake but cannot stop in time. The oncoming train injures the plaintiff’s legs catastrophically. They could not be saved. Both legs had to be amputated below the knee.

The pleadings

The plaintiff commenced this action on 16 June 2011. As she is a minor, she sues through her father as her litigation representative. On 31 January 2012, the plaintiff added the LTA as a second defendant and filed her third amended Statement of Claim asserting a cause of action against the LTA.

The plaintiff pleads that her injuries were caused by the following breaches of duty by the defendants:⁴ breach of a duty of care in negligence; breach of duty as occupiers: the defendants are both occupiers of AMK Station, and the plaintiff was a lawful visitor to AMK Station, having paid a fee to the defendants’ ticketing agents for the use of AMK Station⁵; breach of statutory duty: the defendants failed to take adequate measures to prevent people from falling from a height, in breach of paragraph 27 of the fifth schedule of the Building Control Regulations 2003 (Cap 29, S 666/2003) (“the Regulations”)⁶; and breach of an implied term of the contract between the plaintiff and SMRT and/or LTA that AMK Station would be safe for lawful visitors standing on the platform behind the yellow line, even if the platform was crowded⁷.

The plaintiff also pleads and relies on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur⁸.

The plaintiff gave the following particulars of the defendants’ breaches of duty: failing to erect, design or construct any or sufficient barriers between the platform and the tracks at the time of construction of AMK Station or at the time of the accident⁹; failing to be aware of, or prevent, the reasonable risk of persons falling into the tracks when the platform is overcrowded, including the possibility of persons being pushed¹⁰; failing to ensure that trains arrived at a proper interval such as to prevent overcrowding at the platform, thereby causing the plaintiff to lose her balance after she was pushed¹¹; failing to ensure that the distance between the yellow line and the edge of the platform (“the yellow line distance”) was sufficient to prevent people falling onto the tracks when people pushed forward, and misleading the plaintiff into believing that she would be reasonably safe as long as she stood behind the yellow line¹²; failing to take any or any sufficient measures to ensure the plaintiff was safe when the trains were approaching¹³; failing to keep adequate manpower on the platform to ensure proper crowd control especially when the platform was very crowded¹⁴; failing to institute or enforce any or any adequate system of monitoring or crowd control whereby danger could be detected before the plaintiff’s accident¹⁵; and failing to see the plaintiff in sufficient time or to brake the train in sufficient time to avoid the plaintiff’s accident¹⁶.

The plaintiff’s position evolved considerably over the course of trial. At the conclusion of the trial, counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Gomez, accepted that it was no longer the plaintiff’s case that¹⁷ she had been pushed on to the tracks¹⁸. He also did not also pursue the allegation that the defendants negligently permitted the platform to become overcrowded¹⁹, whether by failing to ensure that the trains arrived at proper intervals²⁰ or otherwise. Mr Gomez also dropped the allegation that there was negligence on the part of the train driver²¹ or in the operation of the train’s brakes²². However, he did argue that the speed of the train when it arrived at AMK Station had been unreasonably fast²³. In relation to defendants’ failure to erect any barriers at the platform edge, it became apparent as the case unfolded that the plaintiff’s contention encompassed both the defendants’ failure to erect permanent platform-edge barriers at the time the plaintiff was injured, as well as its failure to erect interim platform-edge barriers while it was installing the permanent platform-edge barriers.

SMRT’s defence to the claim in negligence is that it took appropriate and sufficient measures to prevent people from falling from the platform on to the tracks at AMK Station. These measures included drawing a yellow safety line on the platform, broadcasting audio warnings and displaying warning signs trackside at AMK Station. SMRT also averred that installing platform-edge barriers was not a matter within its purview²⁴. The LTA argues that it was not negligent because it took appropriate and sufficient measures to prevent people falling onto the tracks at AMK Station²⁵. In particular, it pleads that platform-edge barriers were not necessary to keep the plaintiff reasonably safe²⁶.

Both defendants aver that safety is a responsibility shared between SMRT, the LTA and passengers. They both also initially averred that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused solely by or “wholly” contributed to by the plaintiff’s own negligence in failing to keep a proper lookout for the oncoming train, failing to take reasonable care of her own well-being, failing to pay adequate attention to the surroundings, failing to take precautions for her own safety and failing to stand behind the yellow line until the train had stopped²⁷.

In relation to the claim for breach of statutory duty, both defendants contend that MRT stations are exempt from complying with the Regulations²⁸.

At the conclusion of the evidence, counsel for the defendants, Mr Anparasan, conceded that the LTA and SMRT both owe a duty of care to the plaintiff²⁹; and that if they were to be found to be in breach of this duty of care, that the breach caused the plaintiff’s injury³⁰. The defendants also abandoned their claim of contributory negligence against the plaintiff³¹.

The issues before this court

The legal issues before me are as follows: The basis of the defendants’ duty of care to the plaintiff; Whether there was a contract between the plaintiff and SMRT; and if so, whether there was an implied term in that contract; and if so, whether that term was breached; The standard of care expected of the defendants; Whether the defendants breached their duty of care to the plaintiff; Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies; and Whether there was a breach of statutory duty on the part of the defendants.

Before dealing with these issues however, it is necessary for me to make factual findings on two key points: Why did the plaintiff fell onto the tracks? and Was the plaintiff standing behind the yellow line when she fell?

Why did the plaintiff fall onto the tracks? The oral evidence

There was some uncertainty as to why the plaintiff fell onto the tracks. The plaintiff initially alleged in her affidavit that the passengers waiting on the platform at AMK Station that morning rushed or surged toward the yellow line, pushing and shoving and coming into close contact with her as the train approached. The plaintiff no longer pursues that allegation. The plaintiff’s evidence in chief is that she simply “lost [her] balance”³². She is unable to remember tumbling from the platform on to the train tracks because her mind went blank sometime between the time she lost her balance and the time she landed on the tracks³³. She regained consciousness only when the train was approaching but was unable to react by scrambling to safety as she was in a state of shock. The plaintiff maintained in her testimony that she did not faint³⁴. On the last day of trial, Mr Gomez summed up the position as being that the plaintiff “felt dizzy” and “blanked out just before the train arrived”, but stopped short of agreeing with my suggestion that she had fainted³⁵.

The defendants’ case is that AMK Station was not crowded on 3 April 2011 because it was not a weekday and because the plaintiff was not travelling at peak hour. They argue that the plaintiff clearly was not pushed or jostled into losing her balance. But they do not allege that the plaintiff jumped from the platform or that her conduct was in some other way deliberate. Their pleaded case is that she fell onto the tracks “on her own accord.”³⁶ That is a curious phrase given that the defendants do not allege that the plaintiff’s actions were deliberate. In the...