Rengaraj Krishnamoorthy v Conint Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Clement Seah Chi-Ling
• Judgment Date: 04 May 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGDC 84
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No 956 of 2021, District Court Appeal No 7 of 2023
• Hearing Date: 19 December 2022,03 October 2022,27 July 2022,28 July 2022,29 July 2022,31 January 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGDC 84
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: Perumal Athitham and Muhamad Ashraf Syed Ansarai (Yeo Perumal Mohideen Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Mahendra Prasad Rai (Cooma & Rai)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Pleadings,Tort,Negligence,Breach of Duty
• Published date: 20 July 2023

District Judge Clement Seah Chi-Ling: Introduction

This suit was brought by the Plaintiff in negligence and for breaches of the Workplace Health and Safety Act (“WSHA”) against the Defendant, claiming damages for personal injuries suffered by him in an industrial accident that occurred on 7 January 2020 at about 10.00 am at Temasek Polytechnic, Singapore.

Undisputed Facts

At the material time, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Construction Worker under a work permit issued by the Controller of Work Permits.

The Defendant was an exempt private company limited by shares carrying on the business of “general contractors”, with “building construction including major upgrading works” as its primary business activity.

At the material time, the Defendant was the main contractor at Block 9, 21 Tampines Avenue, Temasek Polytechnic, Singapore 529757 (the “Worksite”), and was carrying out repair and redecoration works at various levels of the Worksite. The Defendant was also the occupier having control of the Worksite and the work carried out therein.

A scaffolding structure was built around the external façade of the building at the Worksite so that the Plaintiff and his co-workers could access the necessary parts of the exterior of the building. There were access openings on each level of the scaffold structure, with a monkey ladder installed at each opening, to provide a point of access and egress between the different levels of the structure.

On 7 January 2020, the Plaintiff was carrying out work at the Worksite when the Plaintiff sustained a fall, as a result of which, he suffered the following injuries (the “Accident”): Comminuted intra-articular fracture of the left distal humerus with intra-articular fracture and traumatic ulnar neuritis; and Surgical Scar – Left elbow revealed a 16cm x 0.5cm posterior longitudinal scar along the med-proximal forearm, elbow and the distal arm.

How the accident happened, and the manner in which the Plaintiff sustained the fall, were severely disputed between the parties.

The Disputed Facts The Plaintiff’s case Plaintiff’s testimony

The Plaintiff’s case was that on 7 January 2020, at about 10.00 am, he was instructed by his supervisor, one “Periyasamy”, an employee, agent or servant of the Defendant, to drill rain water drainage holes along the external façade on levels 5 and 6 of the building. The Plaintiff was instructed by his supervisor to mark spots along the said façade, approximately 1.2 metres apart, before beginning to drill the holes at the said spots. As he was walking along the curved scaffold structure on level 6 and marking the spots, he fell through an opening on the floor which was not covered or cordoned off. He landed on the platform of level 5 with great impact to his left side and back, and his left hand struck the scaffolding pipe.

The Plaintiff claimed that he was strictly instructed to move sideways along the structure to accurately measure the distance between the spots, making it all the more difficult for him to notice the said opening¹.

The Plaintiff asserted that during the initial days of his employment with the Defendant, the Defendant used to install metal pipes on either side of the openings on each floor, built horizontally up to the waist level, so as to prevent the workers from falling over whilst working. The Defendant, however, gradually stopped installing such metal barricades/pipes. On the material date, there were no such metal pipes/barricades on either side of the opening from which he fell².

The Plaintiff further stated that at a safety briefing conducted on the morning of the Accident prior to the commencement of works, he had requested for a co-worker to assist him with the instructed task. However, his request was denied. Instead, he was instructed to carry out the instructed task on his own and in an expeditious manner as the Defendant had to hand over the site soon.³

Elavarasan’s testimony

The Plaintiff called one Govindasamy Elvarasan (“Elavarasan’) as his witness at trial. Elavarasan was employed by the Defendant as a general construction worker at the material time. Elavarasan did not personally witness the Accident. He, however, gave the following testimony which supported the Plaintiff’s case.

Elavanrasan testified that during the safety briefing conducted on 7 Janauary 2020, the Plaintiff had requested for a co-worker to assist him with the works. The request was denied and the Plaintiff was instructed to carry out the assigned work on his own.⁴

Elavarasan also testified that the Site Engineer of the Defendant, one Muthuraja Manikandan (“Manikandan”), had informed him and his co-workers during lunch time at about 1.00 pm on the day of the Accident that the Plaintiff had fallen through an access opening on the scaffold structure as the opening was not barricaded or cordoned off, and advised them to be more careful whilst working on the scaffold structure. Elavarasan claimed that at the safety briefing meeting conducted the next morning however, they were told to disregard the instructions received at the briefing the day before, and to instead maintain that the Plaintiff had fallen whilst descending the monkey ladder as he had failed to anchor his safety harness⁵.

Elavarasan further corroborated the Plaintiff’s testimony that during the initial days of his employment, the access openings used to be barricaded by the Defendant using metal pipes similar to the description testified by the Plaintiff. The Defendant however gradually stopped installing these metal pipes, and that on the day of the Accident, there were no such pipes installed on either side of the opening where the Plaintiff allegedly fell⁶.

The Defendant’s case

The Defendant’s case was that the Plaintiff lost his footing, slipped and fell whilst he was descending from Level 7 to Level 6 of the external scaffold using the monkey ladder. The Plaintiff lost his footing as he failed to anchor his safety harness to the rungs of the ladder or other available structures whilst descending the ladder.

Kulangi’s testimony

The Defendant based their case on, inter alia, the testimonies of a number of Plaintiff’s co-workers, including one Mahalingam Kulangi (“Kulangi”). Kulangi was carrying out plastering touch-up works from the external scaffolding at Level 6 at the material time. Kulangi testified that at about 9.30am, he heard a shout at Level 6. He rushed to the location and saw the Plaintiff lying down on the metal decking of the external scaffold near the ladder at level 6⁷. When he asked the Plaintiff how he fell, the Plaintiff stated that he was climbing down the ladder to level 6 when he lost his footing and slipped and fell, about 1 metre, from the monkey ladder. Kulangi further testified that he noticed that the Plaintiff was wearing his safety harness but it was not secured to the rungs of the ladder⁸.

Anbumani’s testimony

The Defendant’s Workplace Safety Health Officer (“WSHO”), Govindaraj Anbumani (“Anbumani”), testified to similar effect. Anbumani was not in the immediate vicinity of the Plaintiff when the Accident happened, and did not personally witness the Accident. He claimed, however, to have spoken to the Plaintiff after the Accident, and the Plaintiff told him he was climbing down the monkey ladder to Level 6 when he was careless and lost his footing. He fell about 1 metre from the ladder and landed on his left elbow. The Plaintiff also informed Anbumani that he was wearing his safety harness and that he had hooked both his lanyards, but had removed one of them to transfer the hook as he was descending. However, the other lanyard was not fully or properly hooked on, causing him to fall⁹.

Anbumani further testified that he carried out investigations for the purposes of preparing an Incident Investigation & Analysis Report¹⁰ (the “Investigation Report”). He interviewed the Plaintiff’s two co-workers, Kulangi and Halder Bimal (“Bimal”), who had attended to the Plaintiff at the scene immediately after the Accident. He prepared the Investigation Report on the same day based on what the Plaintiff, Kulangi and Bimal recounted to him.

The description of the incident in the Investigation Report noted as follows:

“[The Plaintiff] was assign [sic] by his work supervisor, Periyasamy to do silicone for the brickwall flashing. He finished his silicone work at Level [sic] and came own to Level 6. When he climbed down from the monkey ladder, suddenly slip his foot then lost his balance and fell down around 1 metre height to the platform. He was wear [sic] the safety harness and fail to anchor when he was descending from the ladder.”¹¹

Anbumani also noted that it was not the first time that the Plaintiff had removed his safety harness whilst working on an external scaffold. The Plaintiff had received a warning letter on 11 October 2019 for failing “to anchor safety harness with removed lanyard when working at height 22 m at Elevation – 1 level 7 and failing to wear goggles, no chin strap, no dust mask, during demolition bricks” ¹².

The Trial on Liability

The trial on liability took place over four days on 27 to 29 July 2022, and 3 October 2022. The following witnesses testified at trial: Plaintiff’s witnesses Rengaraj Krishnamoorthy (“PW1” or “Plaintiff”); Yogesvaran S/O Suppiah (“PW2” or “Yogesvaran”); and Govindasamy Elavarasan (“PW3” or “Elavarasan”). Defendant’s witnesses Mahalingam Kulangi (“DW1” or “Kulangi”); Govindaraj Anbumani (“DW2” or “Anbumani”); and Muthuraja Manikandan (“DW3” or “Manikandan”).

At the end of the trial on liability, I found that based on the Plaintiff’s pleaded case, the Plaintiff had not shown that the Defendant had breached its duty of care owed to it. I therefore dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim with costs. The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with my decision and has filed the present appeal. I set out my...