BNJ v SMRT Trains Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 31 December 2013
• Date: 31 December 2013
• Docket Number: Suit No 432 of 2011
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

BNJ (suing by her lawful father and litigation representative, B)

Plaintiff

and

SMRT Trains Ltd and another

Defendant

[2013] SGHC 286

Vinodh Coomaraswamy J

Suit No 432 of 2011

High Court

Contract—Contractual terms—Implied terms—Whether contract of carriage contained implied term that station would be safe for visitors

Tort—Negligence—Breach of duty—Injury suffered at MRT station—Whether station owner and train operator breached duty of care

Tort—Negligence—Res ipsa loquitur—Circumstances of accident clear—Whether doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied

The plaintiff fell on to the tracks of an MRT station operated by the first defendant and owned by the second defendant. While on the tracks, she was struck by a train and severely injured. The plaintiff claimed damages for her injuries against both defendants alleging breach of a duty of care in negligence, breach of duty as occupiers and breach of statutory duty under the Building Control Regulations 2003 (Cap 29, S 666/2003) (‘the Regulations’). She also claimed that the first defendant had breached an implied term of the contract between the plaintiff and the first defendant.

Held, dismissing the claim:

(1) The CCTV footage and the eyewitness and expert evidence supported the finding that the plaintiff fell on to the tracks because she suffered a sudden and unpredictable loss of consciousness: at [23] and [25] .

(2) The plaintiff's alternative claim in occupier's liability law did not require separate analysis because the general tort of negligence had subsumed the law of occupier's liability following the Court of Appeal's decision in See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd[2013] 3 SLR 284. In any event, this alternative claim would have added nothing to the plaintiff's claim in negligence: at [31] and [32] .

(3) There was an implied term in the contract between the plaintiff and first defendant that the plaintiff would be reasonably safe from injury while using stations operated by the first defendant. The plaintiff's claim in contract for breach of this implied term added nothing to her claim in negligence because both claims raised the same ultimate question: at [51] and [52] .

(4) Assessing whether the defendants had met their standard of care required analysing the magnitude of the risk in question, the seriousness of the harm if that risk eventuated and the cost of precautions against the risk: at [55] and [66] .

(5) The standard of care did not require the defendants to eliminate foreseeable risk but only to take reasonable precautions to reduce foreseeable risk to a reasonable level. The defendants' precautions rendered the relevant risk minuscule: at [91] .

(6) The first defendant's decision to install platform screen doors at the station and other MRT stations like it did not change the station's risk profile and was not an acknowledgment that those stations were not reasonably safe without the doors: at [108] and [110] .

(7) The distance between the yellow line and the platform edge at the station conformed to international standards and was adequate to keep the risk which eventuated at a level that was as low as was reasonably practicable: at [129] .

(8) The speed of 55 km/h at which the train which injured the plaintiff entered the station was a reasonable speed considering the infinitesimal risk which eventuated balanced against the social utility of having a mass rapid transit system capable of transporting the public efficiently: at [133] .

(9) The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not assist the plaintiff's case. The circumstances leading to her injuries were clear. There was no evidential gap for the doctrine to fill: at [140] .

(10) The station was reasonably safe at the time of the plaintiff's accident and the defendants were therefore not in breach of their duty of care: at [141] .

(11) There was no breach of statutory duty under the Regulations because the Building Control (Exemption) Order 1983 exempted MRT stations from complying with the Regulations: at [145] .

Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 (refd)

B (A Child) v Camden LBC [2001] PIQR P 9 (refd)

Barrett v Enfield London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 550 (refd)

Blyth v The Company of Proprietors of The Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11 Exch 781; 156 ER 1047 (refd)

Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 (refd)

Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1989] QB 653 (refd)

Cekan v Haines (1990) 21 NSWLR 296 (refd)

Chai Chung Ching Chester v Diversey (Far East) Pte Ltd [1991] 1 SLR (R) 757; [1991] SLR 769 (refd)

Chan Chung Kuen v MTR Corp Ltd DCPI 764/2009 (refd)

Daborn v Bath Tramways Motor Co Ltd [1946] 2 All ER 333 (refd)

Foo Jong Peng v Phua Kiah Mai [2012] 4 SLR 1267 (refd)

Forefront Medical Technology (Pte) Ltd v Modern-Pak Pte Ltd [2006] 1 SLR (R) 927; [2006] 1 SLR 927 (refd)

Glasgow Corp v Muir [1943] AC 448 (refd)

Hamzah D 494 v Wan Hanafi bin Wan Ali [1975] 1 MLJ 203 (refd)

Hare v British Transport Commission [1956] 1 WLR 250 (refd)

Industrial Commercial Bank v Tan Swa Eng [1995] 2 SLR (R) 385; [1995] 2 SLR 716 (refd)

Lim Eng Hock Peter v Batshita International (Pte) Ltd [1996] 2 SLR (R) 292; [1996] 2 SLR 741 (refd)

Moorcock, The (1889) 14 PD 64 (refd)

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty [1967] 1 AC 617 (refd)

Public Transport Commission of New South Wales v Perry (1977) 14 ALR 273 (refd)

Ryan v London Borough of Camden (1982) 8 HLR 72 (refd)

Scott v The London and St Katherine Docks Co (1865) 3 H & C 596; 159 ER 665 (refd)

See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd [2013] 3 SLR 284 (refd)

Shirlaw v Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd [1939] 2 KB 206 (refd)

Simkin v London and North Western Railway Co (1888) 21 QBD 453 (refd)

Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency [2007] 4 SLR (R) 100; [2007] 4 SLR 100 (refd)

Stracstone v London Transport Board The Times (21 January 1966) (refd)

State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Mayle [1999] NSWCA 388 (refd)

Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 60 ALR 1 (refd)

Teng Ah Kowv Ho Sek Chiu [1993] 3 SLR (R) 43; [1993] 3 SLR 769 (refd)

Thompson v Smiths Shiprepairers (North Shields) Ltd [1984] QB 405 (refd)

Walker v Northumberland County Council [1995] ICR 702 (refd)

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 (refd)

Building Control Act 1973 (Act 59 of 1973) Pt II

Building Control Act (Cap 29, 1999 Rev Ed) s 49 (1)

Building Control (Exemption) Order 1983

Building Control Regulations 2003 (S 666/2003) reg 3, Fifth Schedule paras 26, 27, 28

Cosmas Stephen Gomez and Subbiah Pillai (Cosmas LLP) for the plaintiff

Anparasan s/o Kamachi, Grace Tan and Tan Wei Ming (Khattar Wong LLP) for thedefendants.

Judgment reserved

Vinodh Coomaraswamy J

1 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 was injured on 3 April 2011

2 The plaintiff arrived in Singapore on 14 March 2011 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 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 am. Closed-circuit television (‘CCTV’) footage from AMK Station showed her walking on to the platform at 11:04 am and waiting for a train. Just as the train pulled into the station, the plaintiff fell face forward over the edge of the platform on to the tracks. The train driver applied the emergency brake but could not stop in time. The oncoming train injured the plaintiff's legs catastrophically. They could not be saved. Both legs had to be amputated below the knee.

The pleadings

4 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.

5 The plaintiff pleads that her injuries were caused by the following breaches of duty by the defendants:

(a) breach of a duty of care in negligence;

(b) 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 Station;

(c) breach of statutory duty: the defendants failed to take adequate measures to prevent people from falling from a height, in breach of para 27 of the Fifth Schedule of the Building Control Regulations 2003 (Cap 29, S 666/2003) (‘the Regulations’); and

(d) 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 crowded.

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

7 The plaintiff gave the following...