Ng Song Leng v Soh Kim Seng Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd and Another

• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 06 November 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] SGHC 289
• Citation: [1997] SGHC 289
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: R Karuppan Chettiar and Steven Lam [Karuppan Chettiar & Partners]
• Defendant Counsel: Low Thiang Hock [Chor Pee & Co],Andrew Yeo and Chua Boon Thien [Allen & Gledhill]
• Published date: 18 February 2013

Judgment:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

In this action, which was commenced on 31 October 1994, the plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries sustained by him on 18 November 1993 and for loss and damages suffered while he was employed by the first defendants as a mechanic at the warehouse of the second defendants. At the time of incident, he was 29 years old. He was not and has not married. He has 4 brothers, whose ages range from 32 to 38 years and three sisters. Two of them are married. He has a 42 year old sister who works in the Post Office. She is not married and has been staying with him and looking after him. His 70 year-old father has been looking after his own parents in a separate house. The plaintiff has grandparents with long lives. On the other hand, his mother died of cancer in January 1993.

2 Just before the incident, the plaintiff had taken measurements of the heights of the racks in the warehouse which was owned by and in the possession of the second defendants. As he was climbing down the rack, without any safety-belts, ropes or harness, he slipped and lost his footing. He fell from a height of about 10 metres and sustained severe spinal chord injuries. He became a tetraplegic; but much more of the details later.

3 When the matter came up for trial before me, questions on liability were agreed. Under the agreement, the first defendants accepted 80% liability. The remaining blame was shared equally between the plaintiff and the second defendants. The trial therefore dealt with the evidence and submissions bearing on the quantum of the general and special damages.

4 On 22 August 1997 I handed down, inter alia, the following awards:-

(1) Pain and suffering and loss of amenities	$160,000
(2) Transport charges for family members to visit the plaintiff while he was in hospital for the period between 18 November 1993 to 30 November 1994	$ 1,500
(3) Cost of renovation, furniture and household fittings for the plaintiff's current HDB flat which was modified to accommodate the plaintiff's disabilities	$ 7,500
(4) Pre-trial loss of earnings of 44 months at $1,800 per month less the sum of $14,700 previously paid by the first defendants	$ 64,500
(5) Pre-trial nursing care for 39 months at $700 per month	$ 27,300
(6) Loss of future earnings at $2,250 per month for 15 years	$405,000
(7) Future medical and nursing care at $1,400 per month over a period of 17 years	$285,600

5 The plaintiff is dissatisfied with only one item of my awards, viz, the award of $160,000 as general damages for pain and suffering and filed the notice of appeal on 12 September 1997. The second defendants are also dissatisfied with the abovementioned awards and filed their notice of appeal on 2 September 1997. I will now set out the facts and reasons relevant to the awards under appeal.

6 After the incident, he was first treated at the National University Hospital. He was subsequently transferred to the Tan Tock Seng Hospital Rehabilitation Department. He was found to have sustained (1) a fracture of the 5th and 6th cervical vertebrae (C5, C6) with paralysis of both upper and lower limbs and bladder and bowel dysfunction; and (2) head injury with left parietal extradural haemorrhage. At the NUH he underwent a discectomy with anterior fusion and plating of C5, C6; ie the vertebrae were joined more to the front by a steel plate.

7 On 17 November 1994, after about 2 months' hospitalisation at NUH, the plaintiff was transferred to the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine of Tan Tock Seng Hospital. He was transferred for rehabilitation and management of the bladder and bowel functions. He was found to have complete paralysis of his lower limbs and partial paralysis of his upper limbs. The latter diagnosis meant that he could only shrug his shoulders and flex (bend) his elbows and extend (bend backwards) his wrist.

8 At TTS Hospital the plaintiff developed heterotopic ossification around both shoulders and had frequent attacks of autonomic dysreflexia. They were successfully managed.

9 To improve his hand function and the strength of his right hand, he underwent some tendon transfers at NUH. The left thumb tenodesis of extensors of the thumb and brachioradialis were transferred by surgery to the right thumb: see PBD 12.

10 On 13 July 1994. he also had an anterior sacral root implant (ASRI) at NUH to improve his bladder control. In other words, a wire (ASRI) was inserted and the plaintiff uses a Fneteck-Bindley bladder control. Whenever he goes out he has to use diapers.

11 As to the loss of bowel control, he has to use enemas to defecate. Sometimes a manual evacuation is needed.

12 Dr Kong Keng He of TTS Hospital, the Head of the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, confirmed the medical report (PSD12 & 13) issued by his predecessor, Dr Tan Eng Seng who had passed away. He said plaintiff's life expectancy would be shortened 5 to 10 years. The plaintiff would require treatment for his spasticity for life. The doctor did not expect any further improvement in the plaintiff's condition.

13 When challenged that the plaintiff's hands were functional, the doctor explained and I accepted that the plaintiff's hands did not and would not have any grip function. He amplified, on being further challenged, that this disability was not limited just to "fine work". He said the grasp was not there at all.

14 The doctor observed that the most important parts of one's upper extremities are the hands and fingers. Without them, the upper extremities are "practically useless". The doctor, however, agreed that he could move his arm in a definite manner and has residual strengths of his shoulders and elbow. An attempt was made to improve the strength of his right hand, as noted earlier in para 9 above, but unfortunately the plaintiff did not do well in the transfer.

15 The plaintiff has been visiting him for medical examination once every 3 to 6 months. The plaintiff needed to take 6 Baclofen tablets daily. These tablets were expensive. He did not go for any physiotherapy, which he should at least once a week, as...