Chan Fook Seng v BHCC Construction Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chiah Kok Khun
• Judgment Date: 18 August 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGDC 331
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No. 2774 of 2012/M
• Published date: 14 October 2015
• Year: 2014
• Hearing Date: 28 April 2014,29 April 2014,12 June 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Shanker Kumar (M/s Hoh Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Lee Mun Hooi (M/s Lee Mun Hooi & Co.)
• Subject Matter: Tort,Negligence,Res ipsa loquitur
• Citation: [2014] SGDC 331

District Judge Chiah Kok Khun: Introduction

On 27 September 2011 Chan Fook Seng (“Chan”), the plaintiff was transporting metal deckings in a 40-foot lorry crane. The metal deckings were scaffolding materials used by BHCC Construction Pte Ltd (“BHCC”), the defendant to carry out reinforced concrete structural works at a building project. BHCC had hired the metal deckings from a supplier. BHCC wanted to return the metal deckings to the supplier and engaged Ang Crane Services Pte Ltd, the employer of Chan, to do so. Chan collected the metal deckings from the building project site to convey them to the premises of the supplier. This was at No. 10 Gul Drive. He reached the premises and parked by the side of the road. He was preparing to unload the stacks of metal deckings. It was about 11.40 am. He proceeded to unfasten the lashing belt that held the decks to the lorry, so that the deckings might be lifted off the lorry and unloaded. As he unfastened the lashing, about 52 metal deckings fell on him. He suffered injuries, including injuries to his back, ribs, lungs and pelvis region.

Chan’s case is that BHCC’s have failed to properly secure the bundles of deckings using suitable materials and competent workers.¹ He said that BHCC had used metal wires that were too thin to tie the deckings.² Chan also invokes the principle of res ipsa loquitur. Chan accordingly claims against BHCC for loss and damage suffered as a result of the accident.

Issues

The issues are: Was suitable material used for tying the deckings? Was there a question in regard to a safe system of work to be provided by BHCC? Who was responsible for how the deckings were placed on the lorry? Whether the accident was attributable to the plaintiff? Is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable?

Was suitable material used for tying the deckings?

Chan gave evidence that each bundle of metal deckings consisted of 40 to 50 deckings arranged in at least 4 stacks.³ He testified that galvanised wires were normally used to tie the metal deckings into the stacks. He said that the wire would go round the stack one round; and sometimes two rounds.⁴

There is a difference in the way the stacks are tied when the metal deckings were delivered by the suppliers of the metal deckings to customers and when the customers returned the deckings to the suppliers after use. When the suppliers deliver the deckings, the stacks would be bound in half-inch green steel strappings. Pictures of such bindings were shown in court.⁵ When the customers returned the deckings to the suppliers after use however, galvanised wires would be used to tie the stacks together. By Chan’s own evidence, this appears to be the industry practice.⁶ The distinction in the material used is relevant. The accident had happened when Chan was returning the deckings to the supplier. It was therefore within industry norms for wires to be used to tie the decking together, rather than half-inch green steel strappings. Chan affirmed this in cross examination.⁷

A galvanised wire was shown to Chan in court.⁸ Chan agreed that the wire was the usual type used to tie metal deckings together. He went further to state in re-examination that it was the only type of wire used by contractors to tie up the metal deckings.⁹ He admitted that the wire was suitable for tying up the deckings.¹⁰ The evidence is therefore clear that the material used for tying the deckings was considered suitable in the industry. It was the usual material used for the purpose concerned.

A related question of fact is whether the wire broke. Chan has pleaded in paragraph 4 of his statement of claim that the wire broke when he was unlashing the lashing belts to unload the deckings at the supplier’s premises. He repeated this at paragraph 7 of his AEIC.

In this regard the first matter to note is that Chan’s own evidence in court is that the metal wire was folded once before been used to tie the deckings.¹¹ This meant that there were two wires binding the deckings together. Further, in the midst of cross examination Chan said he had heard a popping sound but was unsure if the wire had broken.¹² He also admitted subsequently that there was no evidence of the wire breaking.¹³

In view of Chan’s testimony in court and as the only evidence in respect of whether the wire broke is the assertion of Chan in his AEIC, I am unable to make a finding that the wire had in fact snapped at the time of the accident.

Was there a question of a safe system of work?

In discussing this issue a distinction must first be made between binding the deckings in stacks and securing the stacks to the lorry. Chan gave evidence that as long as the deckings appeared to be safe and tightened, he would load them onto his lorry.¹⁴ If it was “lopsided” he would not load.¹⁵ He would hoist the deckings onto the lorry (using the crane on the lorry) and he was assisted in this by workers at the project site.¹⁶ When the stacks of deckings had been loaded onto the lorry Chan would ensure that the deckings had been stacked properly in his lorry. He would then secure the stacks with lashing belts attached to his lorry. The lashing would go across the entire lorry.¹⁷ What is clear from the evidence is that the responsibility for loading the deckings belonged to Chan. He would load them and secure them to his lorry using lashings that were attached to his lorry, albeit assisted by workers at the project site. Therefore, whilst BHCC’s workers would be responsible for binding the deckings in stacks, Chan was responsible for securing the bound stacks to the lorry before transporting them.

This being the case, the question of a safe system of work relevant to the claim against BCHH would be in regard to the tying of the deckings in stacks. Any question of a safe system of work in regard to securing the stacks to the lorry, if it arises, would be between Chan and his own employer.

The question of a safe system of work relating to the tying of the deckings in stacks is in fact subsumed in the discussion of the earlier issue. The discussion showed that BHCC had used suitable material for tying the deckings. There is no evidence that the wire broke when the accident happened. There is also no evidence to show that the tying of the deckings was in any way not done properly. In fact Chan had given evidence that he was satisfied that the metal deckings were properly secured and safe before they were hoisted and placed on the lorry.¹⁸ There was therefore no question of a safe system of work...