Hua Sheng Tao v Welltech Construction Pte Ltd and Another and Another Case
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Bay Boon Teck Marvin |
| Judgment Date | 31 May 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] SGDC 130 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Published date | 06 October 2003 |
| Year | 2003 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | N Srinivasan and Prasanna Devi (Hoh & Partners) |
| Defendant Counsel | Adeline Chong (Harry Elias Partnership) |
| Citation | [2003] SGDC 130 |
1. These are the grounds of decision arising from appeals against my judgment by the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff’s claim arises from an industrial accident at a construction project at Punggol. The Plaintiff was a skilled plasterer employed by the second defendant to work at the construction project. The first defendants were the main contractors, while the second defendant undertook all the structural and architectural works for the Project as sub-contractors for the first defendants.
2. After hearing parties I found the second defendant 60 percent liable for the accident, with the plaintiff contributorily liable for 40 %.
3. On the issue of quantum of damages, I assessed the general damages damages for the plaintiff’s pain and suffering at $18 000, loss of earning capacity at $35 000, future medical expenses at $4 000. For special damages, I assessed loss of pretrial earnings at $2 000, medical expenses at $572.39 and transport at $300.
The issue of liability
Evidence of PW1 Hua Sheng Tao
4. The plaintiff was a 32 year old floor and wall tile setter who had 15 years of experience in the trade. He arrived in Singapore in 1 November 2000 and commenced employment for the second defendant Transbuilt Engineering Pte Ltd (hereinafter: Transbuilt) in 14 November 2000. In Singapore, he worked for two months before the accident occurred.
Circumstances of the Accident
5. The accident took place in a construction site at Block 128 C, Punggol 21, Punggol East C17. The main contractor of the site was the first defendant, Welltech Construction Pte Ltd ( hereinafter: Welltech).
6. According to the plaintiff, at the date of the accident, 28 January 2001, he was working on a 4 metre platform erected on a scaffolding frame. He recalled the time to be between 10 :00 and 11:00 a.m. The scaffold structure had been constructed with platform levels of about 2 metres in interval. The plaintiff stated that he had used up his supply of plastering material and climbed down to the lower platform to replenish the empty bucket. The lower platform he had climbed to was just 2 metres above the ground.
7. According to the plaintiff in his affidavit, he was standing at the lower platform and reaching for his bucket ‘when all of a sudden the platform gave way and collapsed’. The plaintiff landed on his feet.
8. The plaintiff elaborated further that he had actually been wearing a safety belt at the higher level and had undone his safety belt ‘to go down to the lower platform to replenish the supply of plaster’. The platform had collapsed suddenly ‘without warning’ as he reached for the bucket. The plaintiff reiterated that he had no knowledge that the scaffold was not constructed properly and that he was in no position to realize that as there were no signs of the scaffold being unsafe. He had been working in the same manner that he had always been performing his duties and had not done anything to put himself in any danger.
9. He was initially not aware of the extent of his injuries being in ‘a state of shock’ and sat on the floor for a short while, and then got up to resume work. He found both his feet frozen and that he could not walk properly, being in a state of excruciating pain.
10. His group leader Meng Chao Shan asked him to sit for a while until the lunch time. Then, Meng and Bu Zhao Cheng, a fellow worker, carried him to the dormitory to rest. As he was still in pain, he was sent to Tan Tock Seng Hospital the very next day.
Cross examination of PW1, Hua Sheng Tao
11. It is important to analyse what happened by the plaintiff’s own account. At cross examination, the plaintiff said that he had climbed down the rung at the side of the scaffold staging to get to the lowest tier’s metal decking. He did not at this stage detect that the metal decking was improperly placed – his evidence here was that he did not notice anything amiss at all. He did not fall upon making his first step onto the metal decking. Neither did his second step onto the metal decking. He then stretched out both arms to reach for the bucket above him that was on the metal decking in the upper tier. The metal decking did not collapse under him at this time either. It allegedly collapsed under him only after his hands had retrieved the bucket.
12. Hence the fall occurred by the plaintiff’s version, upon his stretching to reach bucket without a safety belt. From the plaintiff’s evidence, it is ambiguous as to when collapse occurred whether it was at the time he was reaching for the bucket, the time he had both hands on the bucket or at the exact time he caught hold of the bucket, at Page 30 of the Notes of Evidence.
Q: Suggest: If the bucket at the edge of the decking and you climbed down the rungs. No need for you to stretch to the 1st level platform to reach for the bucket, do you agree?
A: I have to step on the on the 1st level of the platform because the bucket contained work tools.
Q: You stepped off the rung and stepped onto the platform. Both feet on the platform?
A: Yes.
13. Even by his own account, it seemed unwise for him to attempt to reach for bucket, with an unhooked safety belt, bucket had tools in it, leaving the possibility of injury or distraction if tools fell out of the bucket. Counsel latched onto the safety belt issue, and then proceeded to elicit the plaintiff’s detailed account as to what had happened at Page 33 of the Notes of Evidence:
Q: But knowing that you were going to the 1st level and you were going to the first level and you were reaching for the bucket. Would it be better to have your safety belt on to safely reach the bucket?
A: This is not possible as far as work practice is concerned.
Q: Somebody told you that you had to unhook the belt to come down?
A: No, you cannot because movement could be restricted.
Q: When you took the first step and steeped onto the platform, it did not collapse under you?
A: No, it did not collapse.
Q: When both feet on the metal decking than it collapsed?
A: Yes, both feet on the platform. It gave way when I reached out for the bucket.
Q: You stepped one step, two steps released hands from the rung. You stood without your hands in the rung for one precise movement?
A: I don't understand.
Q: At the decking, you reached for the bucket then it collapsed?
A: Yes.
Q: Hands outreached when it collapsed?
A: Both hands held the bucket.
Q: Already held the bucket?
A: Yes, I was holding the bucket when the plank gave way.
Q: You already got hold of the bucker when it collapsed under you?
A: I caught hold of the bucket, the plank gave way.
14. The plaintiff seemed rather unsure of the exact instant when the metal decking gave way. First he stated that the decking had collapsed as he reached for the bucket, then he apparently changed his mind to say that the bucket was in his hands when the decking collapsed.
15. In his statements, the plaintiff first said the metal decking collapsed under him. This was later modified to his statement that the metal decking must have collapsed because it was improperly placed. The plaintiff was continued to be uncertain on this aspect up to the time of trial. There, he indicated that he did not know if the metal decking was or was not secure (At Page 29 of the Notes of Evidence).
Q: Co-workers worked on 1st and 2nd levels so they smoothened the walls?
A: Yes.
Q: So the platform at that point of time was secure. Do you agree or disagree?
A: I do not know.
Q: Put: When the platform gave way, the platform was secure at the time. Disagree or do not know?
A: I do not know.
16. There were co-workers at the time of the accident. All, save for one of the co-workers (namely Meng Chao Shan) who gave written statements, did not suggest that the Plaintiff’s fall was due to an improperly placed metal decking that collapsed under him. Defence counsel submitted that this would ‘strongly suggest that the theory was an afterthought between the Plaintiff and Meng Chao Shan, raised for the purpose of making a claim for damages’.
The notice of accident
17. Further, the Notice of Accident did not mention any ill-maintained metal decking (emphasis added) -
“While he was moving from upper lift of scaffold frame to the lower lift; that piece of metal deck which he stepped on it gave way and he lost balance and fell down to the ground which less than 3 m height. As a result, his ankle was injured and sent to Tan Tock Seng Hospital by his China foreman”
18. There was no mention of an unsecured metal decking in the notice of accident. Worse the notice of accident simply adds to the controversy as it contained an inherent ambiguity. It states firstly that the ‘metal decking gave way’ and then there is a reference to the plaintiff that ‘he lost his balance’. In my mind there would be no need to refer to a loss of balance after the decking gave way since there was no issue of the plaintiff keeping his balance in thin air, which would presumably be the case when the decking gave way. DW6, Luong Ah Poh, who recorded the statement, subsequently informed the court that he recorded exactly as the plaintiff told him.
19. The plaintiff admitted that the theory as to the collapse of the metal decking was what he had adopted from Meng Chao Shan, his group leader. It was Meng who had theorized the platform giving way as the cause of the accident. (At Page 37 of the Notes of Evidence).
Q: Looking at the notice of accident of the affidavit from page 31 onwards of the Defendant’s bundle of documents. The blue bundle - it goes to page 34. The safety officer has described the accident in the manner that he got from you. This is his description. The description doesn’t mention anything about an unsecured metal decking. Look at page 26 of Plaintiff bundle of documents. The last paragraph. Meng's statement. He suggests that the couplings were improperly secured. It is at the last paragraph as to the cause of the fall. My question is that it is Meng's theory...
To continue reading
Request your trial