Chua Ah Beng v C & P Holdings Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kan Ting Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 08 May 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGHC 88
• Docket Number: Suit No 909 of 2000
• Date: 08 May 2001
• Year: 2001
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: S Magintharan (Netto Tan & S Magin)
• Citation: [2001] SGHC 88
• Defendant Counsel: Michael Eu Hai Meng and Anthony Wee (Cooma Lau & Loh)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether employers obliged to provide training and warning,ss 22(1), 24(3), 28, 33 Factories Act (Cap 104, 1998 Ed),Whether platform of crane dangerous part of machinery requiring fencing,Employment Law,Whether duty to maintain crane to prevent breakdown relevant,Employees’ liabilities,Whether employers negligent,Whether employers obliged to provide instruction and supervision,Whether outcome different if fall occurs while opening cover,Employee slipping and falling off crane while replacing cover on platform after inspecting engine,Whether employers in breach of statutory duties,Employees’ duties,Whether employers fail to provide safe place of work,Severe injuries

JUDGMENT:

Grounds of Decision

1. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to operate a large Kalmar crane of 37 tons lifting capacity. He filed this action because he suffered severe injuries when he fell off the crane.

2. When the accident occurred, the Plaintiff had just started work for the day. He was carrying out routine inspection of the cranes engine when he fell from the crane onto the ground and suffered spinal injuries.

3. At the time of the accident only he was at the crane, and no one witnessed the accident. He was the only one who can explain what happened. Unfortunately, he gave two different accounts of that, one recorded by an insurance loss adjuster, and another in his affidavit of evidence-in-chief.

4. The Plaintiff sued the Defendants for negligence and breach of statutory duties. For the former the main complaints were that the Defendants have failed to provide a safe workplace by not fitting a fence on the crane which would have prevented the Plaintiff from falling, and failing to provide proper training and supervision to the Plaintiff. For the latter, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants had breached s 22(1) of the Factories Act for failing to provide fencing for the crane, s 24(3) for failing to maintain the crane, s 28(1) & (2) for failing to provide proper training to the Plaintiff, and s 33 for failing to provide a safe place of work.

5. The Defendants denied the claims and alleged that the Plaintiffs injuries were caused or contributed to by his own negligence in failing to take reasonable care of himself.

6. It was not disputed that the Plaintiff did not receive any instructions on the operation of the crane. The Defendants initially employed him as a forklift operator. Subsequently he became a container truck operator. He was doing that for about seven years, when the Defendants purchased the 37-ton crane in 1995 which another employee Teo Chin Heng was assigned to operate. As he showed interest in the crane Teo explained the operations to him and allowed him to operate it occasionally. When Teo resigned in 1997 or 1998, the Plaintiff took over his duties until his accident on 17 March 2000.

7. The Plaintiff operated the crane by himself with no one sharing it with him. He was also in charge of its daily maintenance which involved checking the cranes oil levels and looked out for leakages every morning before starting the crane. He had to get onto the platform in front of the operators cabin and open three rectangular covers on the floor of the level rectangular platform. The covers and the platform floor were of the same alloy material with prominent raised non-skid markings. The covers are lifted by handles attached to one side. When each cover was removed, parts of the engine were revealed beneath and oil levels can be checked and leakages can be detected. The covers were not large or heavy the cover in question measured 109 cm by 64 cm and weighed 10 kilograms, and can be handled by one person.

8. The Plaintiffs practice was to start with the cover nearest to the cabin, and work away from the cabin. On the day of the accident, he had opened and closed the first two covers and was engaged with the third cover when he fell from the platform and landed on the ground beside the crane.

9. As I have stated earlier, the only accounts of the accident came from the Plaintiff. In his affidavit of evidence-in-chief of 18 December 2000, he described the events leading to the accident at paras 33-39 thus

33. On 17 Mar 2000 at 8.00 am I started work at the Defendants factory at 46 Penjuru Lane Singapore 609206. As usual the first thing I would do was to check on the water, oil and pipes to ensure that they are in order before I started operating the said machine.

34. I climbed onto the steps of the said machine and checked on the water level of the machine balancing myself on the little space available. The water was sufficient for the day.

35. I then moved round to the front of the said machine. I grabbed hold of the cabin, and swing myself onto the platform without the aid of any equipment. I then balanced myself on the front platform which was oily.

36. I stepped on the hard covers and squatted to inspect the first compartment and to check the oil level. The compartment was the closest to the cabin. The metal cover was quite heavy. I used both hands to pull out the cover. I put the cover aside and inspected the oil level. I found that the oil was sufficient. I then placed the heavy iron cover back above the oil tank and moved backwards. After moving backwards and still squatting on the third metal cover I inspected the second compartment. I again used both my hands to pull out the iron cover to inspect the pipes. I found that it was in order and replaced the second cover with both hands.

37. After inspecting the second cover I moved backwards to inspect the third compartment still squatting. I was near the edge of the platform as the third compartment was about 2 feet away from the edge. I pulled out the iron cover of the third compartment to check on whether there was any leakage on the large hydraulic pipes. The iron cover was quite heavy and stuck. I gave it a heavy pull and the iron cover dislodged itself. However, due to the weight of the iron cover, the oily surface and my force in removing the same I lost my balance and fell backwards.

38. I was still holding the heavy cover which was pulling me backwards. I dropped the heavy cover but was still falling. There was nothing to prevent me falling backwards and as the result I landed on my back and bounced over the platform and fell off the platform. I shouted as I lost balance but there was no one around. There was also nothing I could have held on to prevent the fall. I tried to reach out for something to hold on to but there was none.

39. I fell from more than 7 feet and landed on the ground in front of the said machine. I felt a crack as my head landed on the ground. I could not move at all as I landed on the ground. I was lying there motionlessly for about 10 mins as there was no one around. I started shouting for help. Then later one of the other prime mover driver one, Mr Ng walked passed and came to my assistance. I told him that I could not move and he then called for help and an ambulance was called. I was then rushed to the National University Hospital and was in rather shocked as I could not feel or move my hands or legs after the fall.

10. A different account of the events was recorded when he was interviewed on 5 April 2000 by insurance adjuster Simon Tan Mui Khim. This statement was signed by the Plaintiffs wife Chia Foong Kheng because he could not sign it himself. The statement was disputed by the Plaintiff, and I will deal with that later on.

11. In this statement, it was recorded that

On 17 March 2000 at about 0750 hours, I arrived at the container yard of No. 46 Penjuru lane. There was no one around there as it was still early. As usual, I climbed up the Kalmars engine compartment to commence the checking of engine oil. I opened the engine compartment and checked the engine oil which is full. I then closed the compartment and opened the other compartment near to the edge of the Kalmar to check the other part of the machine to check for oil leakage. As I was closing the compartment, I suddenly slipped and fell down from the Kalmar and landed on the concrete ground. I cannot remember which part my body landed on the ground. I was wearing a pair of safety boots at that time. I was not wearing safety helmet. When I landed on the ground, I felt that I could not move and shouted for help.

12. Simon Tan is an employee of Crawford & Co International Pte Ltd, loss adjusters. Crawford was engaged by Liberty Citystate Insurance Pte Ltd, the Defendants insurers, to investigate the accident. He visited the Plaintiff at the National University Hospital on 5 April to interview him.

13. Simon Tans evidence was that when he visited the Plaintiff, he introduced himself, and spoke to the Plaintiff in Hokkien. He told the Plaintiff he was there to gather facts on how he fell from the crane, and that he will record a statement from him, and the Plaintiff agreed to give him a statement. At that stage, the Plaintiffs wife arrived. He introduced himself to her, and told her of the purpose of his visit, and of his intention to interview the Plaintiff.

14. He started the interview by recording the Plaintiffs particulars which the latter furnished himself. After that he recorded the events of the morning of the accident. The interview was conducted on a question-and-answer format, and the statement was recorded in narrative form. The process took more than thirty minutes during which time the Plaintiff spoke clearly to him.

15. When the statement was completed, he read it back to the Plaintiff in Hokkien in the wifes presence and asked the Plaintiff to sign it. The Plaintiff said he could not sign because his hands were numb, and suggested that his wife signed it on his behalf. She confirmed that she had no objection to that. He then read the statement to her in English as she spoke fluent English. After that she requested for the statement and she read it over herself, and had a mistake in her name corrected before she signed it.

16. Simon Tan saw the Plaintiff again on 14 July, after he was discharged from hospital. He said that the visit was to ascertain if the Plaintiff could sign the statement he had given earlier. When he met the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff told him he still had numbness in the hands and could not sign, and authorised his wife to sign the further statement that

I wished to state that till now, I am unable to sign this statement due to the numbness of my both hands as a result of my injuries. As such, I had authorised my wife Madam Chia Foong Kheng, NRIC No: 1620474-T to sign the above statement on my behalf. I affirmed the statement to be true and correct and signed by my...