Chai Chew Heng v Chung Su Chon and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 14 June 1984
• Date: 14 June 1984
• Docket Number: Suit No 3396 of 1979
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Chai Chew Heng

Plaintiff

and

Chung Su Chon and another

Defendant

[1984] SGHC 45

T Kulasekaram J

Suit No 3396 of 1979

High Court

Tort–Negligence–Contributory negligence–Injuries sustained in course of employment–Whether contributory negligence–Tort–Vicarious liability–Whether port authority vicariously liable for negligent acts of employee–Section 97B Port of Singapore Authority Act (Cap 173, 1970 Rev Ed)–Regulations 83 (1) and 83 (2) Singapore Port Regulations 1977 (GN No S318/1977)

The plaintiff lorry driver was directed by his employer to deliver to the premises of the second defendant, the Port of Singapore Authority (“PSA”), several bundles of plywood for storage pending shipment. For the purposes of unloading the plywood bundles at the second defendant's premises, the plaintiff's employer had also booked from the second defendant the services of a fork lift and its driver, the first defendant. After the first defendant had stacked three of the plywood bundles on top of each other, the plaintiff proceeded to place a piece of wood on the floor close to the stack to assist the first defendant in placing a fourth plywood bundle on top the stack. In the process of doing so, the stack became unstable and tumbled down upon the plaintiff, causing him to sustain several injuries. The plaintiff claimed damages for the injuries and loss sustained as a result of the negligent acts of the first defendant from the first defendant as well as from the second defendant, in its capacity as the first defendant's master. Whist conceding that the first defendant had been negligent in the manner in which he had carried out his work, it was contended on behalf of the second defendant that (a) the plaintiff was liable for contributory negligence; and (b) reg 83 (2) of the Singapore Port Regulations 1977 (GN No S318/1977) (“the Regulations”) absolved the second defendant of all liability.

Held, allowing the claim:

(1) It was reasonable to infer from the evidence that it was the act of the plaintiff which was the immediate cause for the top bundle to roll down and hit him. As such the plaintiff and the second defendant were equally to blame for the accident that caused the plaintiff's injuries and the liability of the second defendant was to be 50% of the damages to be assessed: at [4].

(2) Regulation 83 (2) of the Regulations did not exclude the second defendant's common law liability for the plaintiff's claim nor did it transfer any part of it on to the shoulders of the hirer of the services of the forklift and its driver, who was the employer of the plaintiff or the exporter of the goods in question: at [9].

(3) Regulation 83 (1) of the Regulations made it quite clear that the liability of the second defendant was not transferred to the hirer but that the hirer was required to indemnify the PSA against any such claim like the one preferred by the plaintiff: at [10].

Karuppan Bhoomidas v Port of Singapore Authority [1977-1978] SLR (R) 204; [1975-1977] SLR 69 (refd)

Kim Taw Electric Sawmill Co (Pte) Ltd v Ann Ee Siong [1979-1980] SLR (R) 492; [1980-1981] SLR 112 (refd)

Port of Singapore Authority Act (Cap 173, 1970 Rev Ed)s 97B (consd)

Singapore Port...