Pillai and Another v Indufela Company and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 30 January 1980
• Date: 30 January 1980
• Docket Number: Suit No 4517 of 1975
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Raghavan Pillai and another

Plaintiff

and

Indufela Co and others

Defendant

[1980] SGHC 4

D C D'Cotta J

Suit No 4517 of 1975

High Court

Tort–Vicarious liability–Injuries caused by negligence of crane driver–Crane driver employed by owner of crane–Crane and driver hired by contractor–Whether general employer or hirer liable for negligence of driver–Whether driver acting under employ or control of general employer or hirer

The plaintiffs were employed by the first defendant and hired to the second defendant for a particular project. They were injured by the collapse of a scaffold as they attempted to dismantle the scaffold which was situated at the worksite of the second defendant. A crane had jerked at the frame of the scaffold. The crane driver who operated the crane was employed by the third defendant who was his general employer but he had been supplied to the second defendant for the project with the crane, which was owned by the third defendant. The plaintiffs claimed against the defendants for damages for the personal injuries suffered.

Held, dismissing the claim against the first and second defendants and allowing the claim against the third defendant:

(1) The accident was caused by the crane driver when he operated the crane without a signal being given. His tugging and jerking of the frame of the top rung of the scaffold caused it to rock from side to side until it overturned. The injuries sustained by the plaintiffs were caused by the negligence of the crane driver: at [18] and [32].

(2) The onus of proof rests on the general or permanent employers to shift the prima facie responsibility for the negligence of servants engaged and paid by such employer to the hirer who for the time being has the advantage of the service rendered: at [31].

(3) The second defendant as hirer could tell the crane driver what work to do but it could not tell him how it was to be done. In the doing of the negligent act, he was exercising his own discretion as a driver, which had been vested in him by his regular employer when he was sent out with the vehicle. The third defendant had failed to discharge the burden of proving that at the time of the accident the second defendant had such control over the crane driver that it was liable for his negligence. The plaintiffs' injuries were caused by the crane driver when he was under the employ of the third defendant: at [29], [30] and [32].

Donovan v Laing, Wharton and Down Construction Syndicate Limited [1893] 1 QB 629 (refd)

Karuppan Bhoomidas v Port of Singapore Authority [1977-1978] SLR (R) 204; [1975-1977] SLR 69; [1978] 1 WLR 189 (folld)

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffiths (Liverpool) Ltd and McFarlane [1947] AC 1; [1946] 2 All ER 345 (folld)

Nicholas v FJ Sparkes & Son [1945] KB 309 (folld)

Karuppan Chettiar (Murphy & Dunbar) for the plaintiffs

C B Yeow (C B Yeow & Co) for the first defendant

Tan Kok Quan (Lee & Lee) for the second defendant

Ng Kian Fong (Ng Kian Fong & Co) for the third defendant

K K Tang (Tang-Tan & Co) for the third party.

D C D'Cotta J

1 The first and second plaintiffs claim against the defendants for damages for personal injuries and consequential loss and expense suffered by the first and second plaintiffs occasioned to them in the course of their respective employment by the first and/or second defendants as a result of an accident on 13 December 1974 in the course of the making of a dry dock at Sembawang and caused by the negligence of the first and/or second defendants, their respective servants or agents in the making of a dry dock and/or of the third defendants, their servant or agent in the operation of a crane.

2 Counsel agreed that the quantum of damages in respect of the first plaintiff, Raghavan Pillai (hereinafter called “the first plaintiff”) be fixed at $14,000 and that of the second plaintiff, Mohamed Kunju, at $162,700.

3 The dramatis personae comprise: the two plaintiffs employed by the first defendants, labour subcontractors and who on this particular occasion were hired to the second defendants (hereinafter called “the hirers”) the main contractor in the Sembawang dry dock project; Vasudheva Kurup (DW3) (hereinafter called “the rigger”) who is now employed by the hirers as a rigger but who, at the time was in the employ of the first defendants but hired to the hirers; and Saad bin Ludin (DW5) the crane driver who was employed by the third defendants (hereinafter called “the general employers”) but supplied to the hirers pursuant to a contract - see AB62 and AB65. The general employers owned the crane.

4 The accident arose in the course of the plaintiffs' attempt to dismantle a scaffold which was situated at the worksite of the hirers at Sembawang. The scaffold collapsed causing injuries to the two plaintiffs.

5 The overall dimensions of the scaffold are 12ft by 4ft by 30 [sic]; it is made up of 15 pieces of 6ft by 4ft standard shoreload unit frames in three rows of five unit frames as shown in Exh P1. The plaintiffs allege that the accident was caused by the negligence of one of the defendants and/or their respective agents or servants.

6 The first question that arises is “whether the scaffold was a safe structure for the workmen ie the plaintiffs and others to work on”.

7 In considering this, it is pertinent to note that the scaffold was being dismantled and was not...