Jeganathan Jaihind v Wang Seng Waterproofing Construction Pte Ltd and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lim Wee Ming
• Judgment Date: 08 June 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGDC 107
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No 228 of 2018, District Court Appeal No 9 of 2021
• Published date: 16 June 2021
• Year: 2021
• Hearing Date: 24 November 2020,25 November 2020,16 March 2021,05 April 2021
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Kerushnan s/o Sivalingkam (M/s KS Mahima LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Soh Gim Chuan (M/s Soh Wong & Yap)
• Subject Matter: Tort,Negligence,Breach of statutory duty
• Citation: [2021] SGDC 107

District Judge Lim Wee Ming: Introduction

The plaintiff’s claim arises from a collision between a boom lift and the plaintiff. The boom lift was operated by the first defendant’s employee. The accident occurred at the second defendant’s factory at Jurong Island. The plaintiff commenced the action herein against the first and second defendants, but subsequently discontinued his claim against the second defendant.

The trial proceeded only against the first defendant. At the end of the trial, I dismissed the plaintiff’s claim against the first defendant. The plaintiff has appealed against my decision.

Facts

The plaintiff was employed as a construction worker by the first defendant, at the second defendant’s factory at Jurong Island. The plaintiff was deployed as a banksman for a boom lift operated by Karuppiah Karuppusamy, the boom lift operator (“the Operator”). The Operator was also employed by the first defendant.

It is not disputed that the plaintiff was to provide signals to the Operator in driving the boom lift. The plaintiff has pleaded that “The Plaintiff was instructed to provide signals to the Operator while the Operator maneuvered the boom lift”.¹

The first defendant has pleaded that the plaintiff acted as the banksman to signal and guide the Operator. The role of the banksman was described in the first defendant’s defence as follows: Due to the design of the boom lift, the Operator driving it would not be able to see the road ahead, as his view would be blocked by the huge engine and boom lift. Hence the Plaintiff’s duty as Banksman was to signal and guide the Operator when the Operator was driving and operating the boom lift.²

In essence, the plaintiff was effectively the eyes of the Operator, who relied on the plaintiff to see ahead, while the Operator was driving the boom lift.

On 20 December 2016 at about 9 am, the plaintiff was walking in front of the boom lift while it was being driven by the Operator, when he was struck from the rear by the boom lift. The plaintiff suffered injuries, which he claims were caused by the negligence or breach of statutory duty of the first defendant, its agents or servants.³

In his statement of claim, the plaintiff claimed that the boom lift had stopped before a sharp turn. The plaintiff was to guide the boom lift in making the turn, but the boom lift suddenly turned left and collided into the plaintiff, without the plaintiff signalling the Operator to proceed.⁴ However, in his affidavit of evidence-in-chief, the plaintiff alleged that he was walking along the middle of the road, when the boom lift suddenly increased speed, moved fast forward and collided into him.⁵

The first defendant’s position is that instead of walking in front of the boom lift, the plaintiff should have walked along the side of the boom lift so that the Operator could see the plaintiff. The first defendant pleaded that: … the Plaintiff negligently walked to the front of the boom lift, out of sight of the Operator. The Plaintiff’s duty was to be on the side of the boom lift at all times when the boom lift was being driven or in operation, so as to be within sight of the Operator. Due to the Plaintiff’s said negligence and failure to perform his duty properly by walking to the front of the boom lift, out of sight of the Operator, the boom lift collided into the Plaintiff.⁶

The Operator’s evidence was that: He followed the plaintiff’s directions strictly and that “when the Plaintiff signalled for me to go forward, I would drive forward and when he signalled for me to stop, I would stop.”⁷ In the five days prior to the incident, the plaintiff and the Operator had followed the same route each day and the same route was taken on the day of the accident.⁸ Before the accident, he had continued driving as the plaintiff did not signal him to stop and that although “there were moments when the Plaintiff went out of my line of sight, but as long as he did not signal me to stop, I would continue driving the boom lift forward”.⁹

The following two CCTV videos were produced showing the journey of the boom lift: The first video showed the plaintiff and the Operator setting off at the start of the journey of the boom lift. In this video, the plaintiff was guiding the boom lift, while walking along the right of the boom lift. At the end of the first video, the boom lift and the plaintiff could be seen making a right turn onto another road. The second video was after the boom lift had made the aforesaid right turn. However, in this second video, the plaintiff was no longer walking along the right side of the boom lift. Instead, this second video showed the plaintiff walking in front of the boom lift, before he was hit from the rear by the boom lift. Both the plaintiff and the boom lift were travelling straight along the road when the accident occurred. Although the plaintiff and the boom lift were approaching a left turn, the left turn was still some distance away, when the accident occurred. There was nothing in the video to suggest that the boom lift was turning left when the collision occurred, contrary to the plaintiff’s allegation in his statement of claim that the collision occurred when the boom lift suddenly turned left.

Neither video captures when the plaintiff moved from the right of the boom lift, to the front of the boom lift.

Issues

The key issues arising from the pleadings and the evidence are as follows: Whether the plaintiff’s account of the accident in his statement of claim is supported by his affidavit of evidence-in-chief. Whether the video footage produced supports the first defendant’s pleaded defence or the plaintiff’s allegations.

Plaintiff’s claim is inconsistent with his affidavit of evidence-in-chief

The plaintiff’s claim, as set out in paragraph 5 of his statement of claim, is that: … At or around 9.00 a.m. the Plaintiff together with the boom lift operator reached a portion of the road with a sharp 90 degree turn. The Plaintiff signalled to the operator to stop and so did...