Ng Shin Hon v Chow Wai Chuang

• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 12 September 1967
• Neutral Citation: [1967] SGHC 17
• Citation: [1967] SGHC 17
• Defendant Counsel: KC Chan (Braddell Brothers)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Denis Murphy (Murphy & Dunbar)
• Date: 12 September 1967
• Docket Number: Suit No 1606 of 1966
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Measure of damages,Whether defendant negligent,Tort,Damages,Negligence,Plaintiff walking onto metal sheets lying flat on ground which in fact covered trench,Plaintiff injured,Amount of damages which should be awarded to plaintiff,Duty of care,Plaintiff engineer inspecting works carried out by defendant,Whether plaintiff negligent in walking over metal sheets,Personal injuries cases,Duty of contractor doing work on land

The plaintiff`s claim against the defendant is for damages for personal injuries, loss and damage suffered by the plaintiff and caused by the negligence of the defendant, his servants or agents.

The plaintiff`s evidence is shortly as follows. On and before 1 March 1966 the defendant was carrying out under a contract with the Government of Singapore certain works on the land forming the curtilege of Monk`s Hill School in connection with an extension of the school by adding an additional floor to the building and constructing a staircase leading up to it. The plaintiff was at all material times an engineer of the Public Works Department and it was part of his duties as such engineer to inspect from time to time the execution of the defendant`s contract. Piles were driven at two sites, at one end of the school building, to take the new staircase but the piles could not be sunk very low as they hit rock. It was then decided to replace the piles with raft foundations, one raft at each site. The piles had to be extracted and the sites excavated first to a depth of six ft to seven ft and the final depth would be decided later. (I will hereafter refer to the two sites as raft No 1 and raft No 2.) It was also decided to put in the rafts one at a time. On 26 February 1966 the plaintiff gave the defendant instruction to dig a trench at raft No 2 to a depth beyond the rocks to firm ground and the plaintiff would come later and inspect and confirm that the depth was sufficient. The defendant was specifically told not to start excavating at raft No 1 until the plaintiff gave the instruction to do so. The plaintiff also told the defendant the same day to put a small earth bund around the trench and put up a shed, with zinc roof resting on struts, well above the trench to keep rain water from getting into it. The next day, 27 February the plaintiff visited the site expressly to see the excavation at raft No 2. The plaintiff found that a trench had already been dug to a depth of two or three feet at raft No 2 but the zinc roof was not up and the earth bund around the trench was not there. No work had been done at raft No 1, it had not been touched. The plaintiff went to the site the next morning, 28 February. He found that the excavation at raft No 2 was well in progress nearing completion; no excavation had been done at raft No 1. He left the site at 9.30am. The following day, 1 March, the plaintiff went to the site at 8.30am to inspect the excavation at raft No 2 and also to inspect the back of the school building to see the progress there. He walked with the PWD overseer towards the excavation site and was talking to the overseer. Coming to the position where raft No 1 was he saw some thin metal sheets lying flat on the ground as if they were on solid ground. He walked on the metal sheets and suddenly he fell into a trench seven to eight feet deep. The metal sheets had in fact covered the trench. He did not think that these metal sheets covered a trench as on the previous day the trench had not been there and he had not given the instruction to excavate at raft No 1. As a result of the accident he suffered personal injuries.

The defendant`s evidence is shortly this. He...