Krishnan Prabaharan v Sri Sun Electrical Engineering Pte. Ltd.

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Clement Seah Chi-Ling
• Judgment Date: 21 June 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGDC 121
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No 1590 of 2021
• Hearing Date: 04 August 2022,21 September 2022,22 September 2022,01 March 2023,31 March 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGDC 121
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: Harvindarjit Singh Bath (M/s Hoh Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Ramesh Appoo and Ellice Kuah Jin Yu (M/s Just Law LLC)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Pleadings,Tort,Negligence,Breach of Duty,Contributory Negligence
• Published date: 25 August 2023

District Judge Clement Seah Chi-Ling: Introduction

The Plaintiff is an Indian national who was employed as a construction worker by the Defendant under a work permit.

At all material times, the Plaintiff was working under the care and control, management and supervision of the Defendant.

The Defendant is a company involved in electrical works. At the material time, the Defendant was carrying out works at locations named as MK13-06243N, MK13-06249V, MK13-06250M, and MK13-06251W at Woodlands Avenue 4 (the “Workplace”).

On 20 March 2021, the Plaintiff was involved in an accident while carrying out cable pulling works with his supervisor Kandasamy Mani (“Mani”) and his co-worker Periyasamy Senthilvelan (“Periyasamy”). The cables were being pulled from the basement to level 9 of the Workplace using an electrical Winch Machine (the “Winch Machine”).

The manner in which the Winch Machine was operated was as follows. When executing the cable pulling, the cables to be pulled up will be hooked to the wire rope attached to the Winch Machine¹. The wire rope would then be recoiled using the Winch Machine by using a remote control, thereby pulling the cables up. The wire rope can be retracted or released from the Winch by pressing the ‘up’ and ‘down’ buttons on the remote control accordingly. By using the ‘up’ and ‘down’ buttons, the operator can control the speed, direction and motion of the Winch. The operator could also stop the Winch immediately by releasing his finger from either the ‘up’ or ‘down’ buttons, or by pressing the emergency button which was located just above these buttons².

At the material time, the Plaintiff was recoiling the wire rope to the Winch Machine using the remote control which he held with his right hand, and using his left hand to spread the wire rope evenly into the Winch Machine for proper recoiling. The Defendant’s left index finger suddenly went into the Winch, as a result of which his left index fingertip was crushed in between the wire rope and the drum of the Winch. This resulted in the amputation of the Plaintiff’s fingertip at the level of the proximal nail fold.

The Plaintiff’s case

The Plaintiff’s case was that it was necessary for the operator of the Winch Machine to guide the wire rope and evenly spread the wire rope into the Winch drum. This must be done so as to prevent the wire rope from bunching up unevenly in the Winch drum which will lead to the wire rope being stuck at one side.

In this regard, the Plaintiff referred to extracts of the Accident / Incident Investigation Report³ (“Investigation Report”), and the WSH Incident Report to the Ministry of Manpower⁴ (“WSH I-Report”), both of which contained references to the Plaintiff using his left hand to “[guide] the rope to the winch machine, for proper coiling of wire rope in winch drum”⁵. The Plaintiff also relied on two videos illustrating the operation of the Winch Machine⁶, which the Plaintiff said showed that as the Winch Machine retracted the wire rope, the Winch Machine was not capable of properly recoiling and spreading the wire rope evenly back into the winch drum on its own. If the machine were left to retract the wire rope on its own without any guidance, the wire rope will bunch up unevenly in the Winch drum and be stuck at one side of the drum and not be able to take in and store all the wire rope⁷. Because of this, the Plaintiff asserted that he was instructed by his supervisor, Mani, to use his hand to guide the wire rope to ensure that the segments of the wire rope did not get on top of themselves, which might cause the wire rope to be cut and damaged⁸.

The Plaintiff’s case is that that the Defendant had breached its duties as the Plaintiff’s employer under the Workplace Safety and Health Act 2006 (2020 Rev Ed) (“WSHA”) in the following manner:

Failing to take, so far as is reasonably practicable, such measures as are necessary to ensure the safety and health of his employee under s 12(1) WSHA

The Plaintiff submitted that the evidence showed that there was a necessity to hold and/or guide the wire rope to the Winch Machine to effect a proper recoiling of the wire rope. However, no tool was provided to the Plaintiff prior to the accident for this purpose, with the result that the Plaintiff had to hold and guide the wire rope using his hands. This was inherently dangerous and posed a real risk of an accident. The Defendant had thus failed to take reasonably practicable measures to ensure his safety and health at the Workplace when performing the cable pulling works.

Failing to ensure that safety measures are taken in respect of any machinery or equipment used by his employees in breach of 12(3)(b) WSHA, and that his employees are not exposed to hazards arising out of the use of things in the workplace under s 12(3)(c)(i) WSHA

The Plaintiff’s position was that the Defendant had failed to ensure that adequate safety measures were taken in respect of the Winch Machine, thereby exposing him to hazards arising out of the use of the Winch Machine at the Workplace.

It was undisputed that the Winch Machine that was provided to the Plaintiff on the material day for the cable pulling works was without any safety guards. According to the Defendant’s Safe Work Procedure, it was stated under the heading “14. Cable Winch” “to ensure all guards/ safety devices are in place”⁹. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant had failed to comply with their own Safe Work Procedure which stipulated the requirement for a guard/safety device. The Defendant consequently breached their duty under s 12(3)(b) WSHA to ensure that adequate safety measures were taken in respect of the Winch Machine. This also entailed a breach under s 12(3)(c)(i) WSHA for exposing his employees, including the Plaintiff, to hazards arising out of the use of the Winch Machine at the Workplace.

The Plaintiff submitted that the Defendant was also in breach of s 12(3)(b) WSHA for failing to identify the risks associated with the cable pulling works in the Risk Assessment. These included, inter alia, the risks associated with workers being required to use their hands to hold and/or guide the wire rope to the Winch Machine.

The Plaintiff’s position was further that he had worn the safety gloves provided by the Defendant when his left-hand glove got entangled with the wire rope when carrying out the cable pulling works. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant, apart from its bare assertions, had not provided any documents to support its contention that the gloves provided to workers (including the Plaintiff) were cut-resistant safety gloves and specifically, level 5 anti-cut gloves.

Based on the photographs of the damaged gloves adduced at trial, the Plaintiff asserted that the gloves provided were inappropriate, were not anti-cut gloves and specifically, not level 5 anti-cut gloves, as claimed by the Defendant. The Defendant was therefore in breach of s 12(3)(b) WSHA, for not providing the appropriate personal protective equipment to the Plaintiff prior to instructing him to carry out the cable pulling works with the Winch Machine.

Failing to ensure that the persons at work have adequate instruction, formation, training and supervision as are necessary for them to perform their work under s 12(3)(e) WSHA

The Plaintiff’s position was that the Defendant failed to ensure that employees had adequate instruction and training as were necessary for them to perform the cable pulling works using the Winch Machine safely. Plaintiff contended that the facts suggested that the Winch Machine was newly purchased for the Workplace sometime in 2021 and that no training was provided to the workers prior to them using the Winch Machine for the first time. The Defendant by not conducting training, which included educating its employees on the safe work procedures and identifying and warning them of the various risks and hazards while operating the Winch Machine for cable pulling works, was in breach of their duties under s 12(3)(e) WSHA.

The Defendant’s case

The Defendant averred that the Plaintiff had failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accident happened as per the Plaintiff’s pleaded case. The Defendant emphasized the precise case pleaded by the Plaintiff at paragraph 6 of his Statement of Claim, namely that:

“At about 3.40pm [on 20th March 2021], while coiling the wire ropes to the machine, the Plaintiff was using his hands to spread the wire ropes evenly into the machine. While doing so, the Plaintiff’s left-hand glove got entangled with the threads of the wire rope and his hand was pulled into the machine. As a result, the Plaintiff was injured.”¹⁰(emphasis added).

The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff failed to adduce any positive evidence to prove that the wire rope was defective or frayed or damaged in any way prior to or at the time of the accident. There was thus no evidential basis to find that the thread(s) of the wire rope had become entangled with his glove and caused his left hand to be pulled towards and into the Winch. The Plaintiff’s allegations of the Defendants’ negligence as per his pleaded case was therefore unproven. As the Plaintiff did not plead or provide evidence of any alternate cause(s) of the accident, and/or allege that these alternate cause(s) of the accident occurred as a result of the Defendants’ negligence, the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed with costs.

Secondly, the Defendant contended that there was, in any event, more than sufficient evidence before the Court to find that the alleged accident was caused solely by the Plaintiff’s negligence. The Defendant asserted that there was no necessity for the Plaintiff to hold or guide the wire rope with his left hand given that the Winch was capable of retracting the wire rope by itself. Even if the Plaintiff had to guide the wire rope, the Plaintiff should have kept his hand at a...