Lu Bang Song v Teambuild Construction Pte Ltd & Ors

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Joseph Yeo
• Judgment Date: 08 August 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] SGDC 236
• Published date: 14 August 2008
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lim Shiu Yi & Belinder (Hoh Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Ramesh Appoo (Just Law LLC)

8 Aug 2008

District Judge Joseph Yeo

1 The Plaintiff is a PRC national. At the material time, he was a construction worker employed by the First Defendant and working at the Second Defendant’s worksite at 12 Jalan Pasir Ria.

2 The Second Defendant was constructing 3 three-storey terrace houses at the said worksite.

The Accident

3 On the day in question, 17 January 2007, the Plaintiff, together with other workmen, was assigned to do concrete casting work on the roof of the corner unit.

4 The work involved the pouring of pre-mixed concrete into formworks. The said concrete was delivered to the worksite by truck and loaded into buckets which were hoisted up to the formworks. There the workmen would, by pulling on a lever on the bucket, release the concrete through a funnel at the base of the bucket.

5 It was the Plaintiff’s task to “vibrate” the concrete, that is, to make sure the concrete filled the formwork without any air pockets and the Plaintiff and his colleagues carried out this task for the entire day.

6 At about 1800 hrs, concrete casting work on the roof stopped because the concrete was wet and the Plaintiff and his colleagues had to wait for it to harden. So the Plaintiff and his colleagues decided to work on the boundary wall in the meantime.

7 3 of the Plaintiff’s colleagues left the roof and went down to the third storey where the next load of concrete was to be delivered for the boundary wall.

8 As the crane lifting the bucket was apparently not long enough to reach the boundary wall, the signalman, Chen Wen Ming, directed it to position the bucket over an area near the boundary wall enclosed by scaffolding. The workmen would then have to scoop the concrete from the floor into the formwork using shovels.

9 Shortly after the Plaintiff’s 3 colleagues left the roof, the Plaintiff went down as well, leaving PW2 on the roof.

10 Upon reaching the third storey, the Plaintiff found that his 3 colleagues had left the third storey. He also saw that the crane, which was being directed by Chen Wen Ming, had already positioned the bucket over the spot where the concrete was to be discharged.

11 The Plaintiff entered the enclosed area and proceeded to pull on the lever behind the bucket to release the concrete. The force from the concrete as it rushed out the funnel at the bottom of the bucket caused the bucket to swing towards the Plaintiff so that the top of the bucket hit him in the head while the lever hit him in the chest.

12 The Plaintiff was knocked backwards into the scaffolding behind him.

13 PW2, who was coming down from the roof, reaches the Plaintiff and pushes the bucket away. At almost the same time, the 3 colleagues who had left the roof first return to assist the Plaintiff.

The Evidence

14 The sole account of the accident put in evidence was that of the Plaintiff. Neither of Defendants’ witnesses was present when the accident occurred and neither was in any position to dispute the Plaintiff’s version of facts.

15 The one individual who, given the task he was carrying out at the time, ought to have had a clear and unimpeded view of events, was not called. I refer to Chen Wen Ming, the signalman, who was stationed on the third storey at the time and was giving directions to the crane operator to lower the bucket to the spot where the concrete was to be discharged.

16 As it would have been Chen Wen Ming’s duty to signal to the crane operator to remove the bucket once the concrete had been discharged, he would have watched the Plaintiff enter the enclosed area and pull on the lever.

17 However, the First Defendant’s manager, Lim Jit Heng, DW1, claimed that Chen...