Fan Zhaohong and Fang Aihua (Both suing as Dependants of Fang Min, Deceased) v Tay Liang Chuan t/a Chiap Huat Chair & Table Hiring Co and Leong Meng Kuan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan May Tee
• Judgment Date: 10 September 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGDC 234
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No. 3946 of 2013, District Court Appeal No. DCA 13 of 2018
• Year: 2018
• Published date: 09 March 2019
• Hearing Date: 23 November 2016,10 April 2017,12 April 2017,11 April 2017,14 September 2016,08 February 2017,24 November 2016,06 February 2017,30 June 2017,31 May 2018,07 February 2017,30 April 2018
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Belinder Kaur and Mr Pang Khin Wee (Hoh Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Ms Edwina Fan (United Legal Alliance LLC),Mr Liaw Jin Poh (Tan, Lee & Choo)
• Subject Matter: Tort,Negligence,Fatal accident,Independent contractor
• Citation: [2018] SGDC 234

District Judge Tan May Tee: Introduction

On 17 March 2013, one Fang Min, a male national from the People’s Republic of China, suffered an electrocution and died while helping out at a religious event at an open space or hardcourt area near Blocks 370 and 371 Bukit Batok Street 31, Singapore. At the time of his death, Fang Min (“the Deceased”) was a work permit holder who had been working as a technician for a company, BHS Kinetic Pte Ltd for about four years.

The Plaintiffs in this action are Fang Min’s parents who claim as his dependants. The 1st Defendant was the contractor who was in charge of setting up the tentage as well as the electrical installations for the event. The 2nd Defendant was the organiser of the event, a temple celebration, and had engaged the 1st Defendant as the contractor to supply the tentage together with the electrical installations and provide the tables and chairs at the site for the event in March 2013. The Plaintiffs had initially brought the action against the 1st Defendant only, but on account of the 1st Defendant’s denial and assertion that the death of the Deceased was likely caused and/or contributed to by the 2nd Defendant, he was subsequently added as a defendant to the action.

The trial before me was on the issue of liability only. The Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant adduced evidence from their respective expert witnesses in the field of electrical engineering, to testify on the possible theories of how the Deceased could have been fatally electrocuted. Besides the factual witnesses called by both Defendants, the Court also heard the testimonies of the forensic pathologist who was the consultant in charge of the autopsy of the Deceased for the purposes of the Coroner’s Inquiry as well as the investigating officers from the Energy Market Authority and the Ministry of Manpower.

At the conclusion of the proceedings, I found the 1st Defendant wholly liable in negligence for the death of the Deceased and dismissed the claim against the 2nd Defendant with costs. I granted interlocutory judgment in the Plaintiffs’ favour against the 1st Defendant for damages to be assessed with costs and interest to be reserved to the assessing registrar and a Sanderson Order in relation to the 2nd Defendant’s costs. Herein are my grounds for deciding against the 1st Defendant who has appealed to the High Court against the judgment.

Background facts

The 2nd Defendant heads a temple by the name of Jit Bao Tan. Every year he would hold a temple celebration at the open space or hard court area opposite Block 371 Bukit Batok Street 31 near to his residence. The participants at the annual temple event comprised worshippers of the temple’s deities and/or volunteers. For the purposes of the celebration, the 2nd Defendant had, for a number of years, engaged the 1st Defendant as the contractor to set up the tentage with all the requisite electrical installations and fittings such as cables, lights and fans and also provide the tables and chairs, and continued to do so even after the fatal incident. The temple’s volunteers would help the 2nd Defendant to put up banners and other religious paraphernalia at the site which would have to be removed at the conclusion of the event.

For the event in March 2013, the 2nd Defendant had paid the 1st Defendant $7,000.00¹. It is common ground that the electricity supplied to the tentage area was tapped from the Housing and Development Board (“HDB”)’s power supply on the ground level of Block 370 some 70 metres away from the site through cables that were strung over the tree tops although a portable generator was also provided by the 1st Defendant². The electrical set-up provided by the 1st Defendant incorporated the HDB supply and the portable generator as sources of electricity.

The 2nd Defendant’s brother, one Leong Meng Fei (“Meng Fei”), was working at BHS Kinetic Pte Ltd where he was a team leader. The Deceased was his subordinate and, according to Meng Fei, a good worker. On 17 March 2013, after the temple event had concluded, Meng Fei had, at the request of the 2nd Defendant, solicited the help of the Deceased and three other colleagues to remove the banners and religious decorations which had been put up at the site. According to Meng Fei, the Deceased had also voluntarily helped out in previous years with the installation and removal of the banners and religious decorations at the start of, and on the conclusion of the temple celebration. After all the tasks were completed, the volunteers would have a meal together at the expense of the 2nd Defendant.

On the day of the accident, all the volunteers were going about their various tasks. It was a hot and humid afternoon with some rain earlier that day and they were all bathed in perspiration from their exertions. The Deceased was standing on top of a mobile scaffold removing the banners and decorations from the area near the top of the tentage when he suddenly screamed. The mobile scaffold belonged to the 1st Defendant and had been left at the site for the 2nd Defendant’s use to put up and remove the banners and religious decorations after the 1st Defendant’s workers had completed the tentage set-up and electrical installation. One Lim Eng Wai who was supposedly a temple medium had reportedly seen the Deceased grabbing onto a light bulb hanging above him which then fell to the ground. The Deceased then slumped onto the scaffolding platform in a sitting position.

Realising that the Deceased could have suffered an electric shock, the 2nd Defendant and Meng Fei ran to the power generator to switch off the power supply. When they realised that the generator was not in use, they quickly ran across to Block 370 to switch off the electricity supply. Meng Fei also informed the police stationed at the Neighbourhood Police Post situated in the same block of the incident and sought assistance. The two men then ran back to the site, climbed up the scaffolding and laid the Deceased flat on the scaffold platform. They called out his name several times but he was unresponsive. The Singapore Civil Defence officers arrived at the scene some minutes later. The Deceased was conveyed to the National University Hospital in an unconscious state and pronounced dead at 2.50 pm after attempts to revive him failed.

A Coroner’s Inquiry was convened which determined the cause of death as “consistent with electrocution”³.

Findings by the Energy Market Authority (“EMA”)

The report put up by the EMA investigating officer⁴ based on investigations carried out at the accident scene had the following conclusion: ‘5.1 From the scene, it was noted that the victim was working directly under the cables supplied with electricity supply from the 15-Amp SSO at Blk 370. The wooden platform where the victim was sitting on the scaffolding was at 3.10m above ground and the metallic tentage was at 3.96m above ground, also, the two metallic structures were placed close to each other for the victim to work. In a sitting or standing position, the victim’s hand and part of his body could possibly come into contacts (sic) with the metallic tentage structure during the course of work. 5.2 From the layout of the metallic structures and presence of live electrical wiring and light fitting on the metallic tentage where the victim was last seen working on, the victim could have received an electric shock via one or more contacts with the exposed live wire, neutral wire or the exposed live parts of the light fitting through his left hand while a part of the victim’s body or his right hand was in contact with the metallic tentage. With a line-earth fault loop impedance of 0.04 ohm, assuming the body resistance of 2,000 ohms, the magnitude of current passing through the victim’s body would be about 115mA. 5.3 Since the RCCB (with sensitivity of 30mA) at the source of supply for the 15-Amp SSO was faulty, it would not trip when the victim received an electric shock. The fault current would not activate the tripping of the 16-Amp MCB controlling the 15-Amp SSO at Blk 370 or the upstream 32-Amp MCB. Under such circumstance, the current passing through the victim would stop when the source of supply from the 15-Amp SSO at Blk 370 was cut off…. 5.4 The accident could have been prevented if: i. The source of supply was taken from a nearby source using cable without damaged insulation and with proper mechanical support such as cable trunking or conduit; and ii. A local DB with a RCCB of 30mA sensitivity is incorporated, this would disconnect electricity supply in the event of any earth leakage and save life. 5.5 It is not a correct practice to string two cables of about 70 metres route length from Blk 370 to the accident site for the purpose of supplying lighting and fans. Our investigation shows that no proper mechanical support was provided for these cables which were installed overhead; the installer chose to have the cables supported on tree branches and permitted the cables to run over public roads without the provision of any supports and electrical safety measures, this inevitably imposed potential safety hazards to the public in wet weather.’

It appeared that the Coroner’s finding on the cause of death of the Deceased as recorded in the Coroner’s Certificate was premised essentially on the investigations carried out by the EMA, as shown in the concluding portion of his Findings (extracted below), although the Coroner came to the view that the fatal dose of electrical current was from the exposed conductors of the light bulb:

“.. The evidence showed that he had been standing directly under the electrical cables. The wires, forming the wiring line, used by Chiap Huat, had flaws. There were several exposed parts where the insulation had been removed, and could potentially deliver electrical shock. However, in this case, it was more likely that the fatal dose of...