MCST Plan No 2668 v Rott George Hugo

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 27 May 2013
• Date: 27 May 2013
• Docket Number: District Court Appeal No 23 of 2012
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2668

Plaintiff

and

Rott George Hugo

Defendant

[2013] SGHC 114

Lai Siu Chiu J

District Court Appeal No 23 of 2012

High Court

Tort—Negligence—Breach of duty—Whether appellant breached duty of care

Tort—Negligence—Causation—Whether appellant's negligence caused injuries of respondent—Whether respondent's conduct broke chain of causation

Tort—Negligence—Contributory negligence

Tort—Negligence—Whether occupier's liability part of general tort of negligence

The respondent (‘the Respondent’) was a subsidiary proprietor and resident of The Equatorial Condominium (‘the Condominium’). He was walking in the basement car park of the Condominium when he slipped and fell after he stepped into a puddle, which was in fact some water thrown over a patch of oil. He sustained injuries as a result of the fall, and commenced an action for damages against the MCST of the Condominium (‘the Appellant’) and the cleaning contractor engaged by the MCST (‘the second defendant’). The Respondent's case against the Appellant proceeded on two fronts, viz, an action under occupier's liability and another under a general duty of care.

In the trial below, the district judge found that the Appellant was not liable under occupier's liability. However, he found that the Appellant had breached its duty of care, and held that it was 35% liable. He found that the second defendant was not negligent.

The Appellant then appealed against the district judge's decision contending that there could not be a separate duty of care owed to the Respondent in addition to occupier's liability.

Held, dismissing the appeal but adjusting the apportionment of liability:

(1) As a result of the decision of the Court of Appeal in See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd[2013] 3 SLR 284, all claims under occupier's liability should be analysed under the general law of negligence: at [22].

(2) As occupiers having control over the car park, the Appellant owed a duty of care to the Respondent to exercise reasonable care: at [24].

(3) The appropriate standard of care the Appellant should be held to was the standard of a reasonable person. A certain amount of judicial discretion was required to decide what standard of care was to be imposed. Relevant factors included the likelihood and risks of harm, the extent of harm, the costs of avoiding harm and industry standards and common practice: at [26] and [27].

(4) On the whole, the maintenance system put in place by the MCST was inadequate to deal with oil spills and water puddles in the car park. The services engaged did not specifically provide for the cleaning of oil patches and water puddles, and there was a lack of a proper system to clean oil patches and water puddles: at [29], [34] and [35].

(5) Establishing causation was a matter of common sense, and the legal inquiry was to find out the effective cause of the damage in order to pin down legal liability or responsibility: at [38].

(6) The extent of unreasonable conduct sufficient to break the chain of causation was when the plaintiff's conduct was so ‘wholly unreasonable’. It was only where the act or omission of a party was of such a nature as to constitute a wholly independent cause of the damage that the intervening conduct may be termed a novus actus interveniens:at [40]

(7) The Respondent's conduct, while foolish and unwise, did not amount to conduct so reckless or so wholly unreasonable such that it broke the chain of causation: at [41].

(8) The apportionment of liability under the defence of contributory negligence required the court to take into consideration the relative ‘blameworthiness’ of the parties. The Respondent was blameworthy in knowingly stepping into the slippery patch with full knowledge of the risks that it entailed: at [42] to [44].

Blyth v The Company of Proprietors of the Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11 Ex 781; 156 ER 1047 (refd)

Chandran a/l Subbiah v Dockers Marine Pte Ltd [2010] 1 SLR 786 (folld)

Cherry, The [2003] 1 SLR (R) 471; [2003] 1 SLR 471 (refd)

Emma Maersk, The [2006] SGHC 180 (refd)

Muirhead v Industrial Tank Specialities Ltd [1986] QB 507 (refd)

Parno v SC Marine Pte Ltd [1999] 3 SLR (R) 377; [1999] 4 SLR 579 (refd)

Plan Assure PAC v Gaelic Inns Pte Ltd [2007] 4 SLR (R) 513; [2007] 4 SLR 513 (folld)

See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd [2012] 3 SLR 227, HC (refd)

See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd [2013] 3 SLR 284, CA (folld)

Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency [2007] 4 SLR (R) 100; [2007] 4 SLR 100 (folld)

State of South Australia v Wilmot (1993) 62 SASR 562 (refd)

TV Media Pte Ltd v De Cruz Andrea Heidi [2004] 3 SLR (R) 543; [2004] 3 SLR 543 (folld)

Ramasamy Chettiar and Sarjeet Singh (ACIES Law Corporation) for the appellant

Boey Swee Siang (ATMD Bird & Bird LLP) for the respondent.

Judgment reserved.

Lai Siu Chiu J

Introduction

1 This is an appeal against the decision of the learned District Judge David Lim (‘the DJ’) in District Court Suit No 3597 of 2008/K (‘the DC Suit’). It concerns a slip accident in which George Hugo Rott (‘the Respondent’) was injured. The accident occurred in 2007 at the car park of a condominium managed by the Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2668 (‘the Appellant’). The DJ found that the Appellant had breached its duty of care towards the Respondent, and held the Appellant 35% liable. The Appellant has now appealed against his decision.

2 The factual issues are relatively straightforward and pertain simply to whether the Appellant had been negligent in failing to ensure that the car park was free of oil patches and water puddles. Because of a recent landmark decision by the Court of Appeal on occupier's liability (see [20] below), an interesting point of law relating to the general tort of negligence vis-à-vis occupier's liability has arisen and needs to be addressed in this appeal, as it was an issue raised in the Appellant's submissions.

3 After considering the parties' arguments and further arguments, I am dismissing the appeal. However, I am also increasing the Respondent's share of contributory negligence from 65% to 75% and give my reasons below.

The facts

4 The salient facts are not in dispute and are set out briefly below.

5 The Respondent was a subsidiary proprietor and resident of The Equatorial (‘the Condominium’) located along Stevens Road.

6 CBM Pte Ltd (‘the second defendant’) was a party to the DC Suit. It was the cleaning contractor engaged by the Appellant to carry out cleaning services within the Condominium's premises.

7 On 19 June 2007, at about 7.15 pm, the Respondent was walking in the basement car park of the Condominium when he slipped and fell after he stepped on what seemed like a normal puddle of water on the ground. The puddle was in fact some water thrown over a patch of oil (‘the slippery patch’). It is not disputed that the Respondent saw the slippery patch and consciously stepped into it, as there were numerous other puddles around and he thought it would be inconvenient to avoid each and every puddle. The Respondent's wife on the other hand circumvented the slippery patch by walking around it. As a result of the fall, the Respondent sustained injuries to his knee and right shoulder. He then commenced an action against the first and second defendants for damages.

The trial judge's decision

8 In the trial below, the Respondent's case against the Appellant proceeded on two fronts, viz, an action under occupier's liability and another under a general duty of care:

(a) under occupier's liability - for failure to prevent damage or injury to the Respondent, as an invitee, from any unusual danger in the basement car park which the Appellant knew or ought to know of and which the Respondent did not know about;

(b) under a general duty of care - for failure to use all reasonable care to prevent harm to the Respondent as a user of the basement car park through its failure to

(i) ensure that the terms of the cleaning services agreement were adequate for keeping the basement car park free of oil patches and water puddles at all times; and/or

(ii) put in place at the time of the accident an adequate inspection and cleaning system to ensure that the floor of the basement car park was regularly checked for and cleaned of oil patches and water puddles.

9 The Respondent's case against the second defendant was one under a general duty of care. The DJ eventually found the second defendant not liable. Hence, it is not a party to this appeal. As against the Appellant, the Respondent's action under occupier's liability failed as the DJ found that the Respondent could not prove the second and third elements of the test because:

(a) the slippery patch was not unusual to him, having regard to...