Sim Guan Soon and Another v Khoo Ting Hong and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 26 September 1968
• Neutral Citation: [1968] SGHC 26
• Docket Number: Suit No 1782 of 1967
• Date: 26 September 1968
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1968
• Plaintiff Counsel: HE Cashin (Murphy & Dunbar)
• Citation: [1968] SGHC 26
• Defendant Counsel: Chao Hick Tin (State Counsel)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Tort,Duty of care,Duty to trespassers,Negligence,Occupier’s liability

The plaintiffs in this case are the administrators of the estate of Lim Siew Liang, deceased, and they bring this action for damages for the benefit of the estate for the deceased`s loss of expectation of life.

The plaintiffs` case is that on 29 March 1967, the deceased was at the rubbish dump at Kolam Ayer Lane looking over rubbish when she was run into and killed by a motor lorry driven by the first defendant, the servant or agent of the second defendant, and which was reversing into the said rubbish dump. The plaintiffs allege that the first defendant did not look to the rear to ensure that it was safe to reverse at the time.

By agreement the report which the first defendant made to the police after the accident was put in at the outset of the hearing by counsel for the plaintiffs. The report reads as follows:

At a/m time and date I drove the above lorry to dump the refuse. On arrival at the said place I then reversed the lorry to have it in position before dumping the rubbish, when suddenly I heard shouts that someone was being run down by my lorry. I got down and found that somebody - a F/Chinese lady was lying behind my lorry. I did not know her condition but ran off for fear of being assaulted.

Counsel then informed the court that the plaintiffs had no eye witness to the accident and was not calling any witness and that he relied on the report of the first defendant to establish a prima facie case of negligence against the first defendant. In my view such a case has been made out.

The case of the defendants is that:

(1) the deceased was a trespasser on the dumping ground and she entered it at her own risk and they owed no duty to take reasonable care for her protection.

(2) the accident was not caused by the negligence of the first defendant.

(3) the accident was caused solely or alternatively contributed to, by the negligence of the deceased.

The dumping ground at Kolam Ayer was under the control of the Ministry of Health.

The evidence of how the accident happened was given by the first defendant. His evidence is shortly this. He has been driving a lorry of the Public Health Division of the Ministry of Health for one and a half years prior to the accident. He has been many times to the dumping ground at Kolam Ayer. On the day of the accident he went there in the lorry to dump refuse. He turned into the dumping ground from the drive in and stopped. He looked in the nearside rear-vision mirror to see whether there was any person or vehicle behind. He did not see anything. He then opened the...