Syed Muhammad Bin Syed Hussain v Vicom Inspection Centre Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Koh Juay Kherng
• Judgment Date: 05 December 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGDC 296
• Hearing Date: 24 May 2016,27 September 2016
• Citation: [2016] SGDC 296
• Year: 2016
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No. 3808 of 2014
• Subject Matter: Tort,Negligence Duty of Care Contributory Negligence
• Published date: 07 January 2017

District Judge Koh Juay Kherng: Introduction

On 27th September 2016, I gave my oral grounds of decision and granted the Plaintiff interlocutory judgement against the Defendants for 10% of the damages to be assessed, with interest and costs reserved to the Registrar. There was an offer to settle given by the Plaintiff on 30 July 2015, which offer was better than the interlocutory judgment granted. As such, the Defendants requested and I ordered the Plaintiff to pay the Defendants’ costs and disbursements from the date of the Defendants’ Offer to Settle till the date of Judgment on a full indemnity basis. The Plaintiff has appealed against my decision. I now set out the written grounds of my decision.

Plaintiff’s Case

The Plaintiff was 68 years old when he fell into a 2 meter deep VICOM inspection pit (“inspection pit”) at the Defendant’s Bukit Batok inspection centre located at 511 Bukit Batok Street 23 (“premises”). The incident happened on 5 February 2014, when the Plaintiff accompanied his son to the premises where his son’s car was sent for inspection.

The Plaintiff’s case against the Defendants was premised on the Defendants’ failure (as occupier) to provide a safe place within the premises for the Plaintiff (as lawful visitor) at the material time.

The Plaintiff claimed that his accident was caused or contributed to by, the Defendants’ breach of their common law duty and/or statutory duty and/or, the negligence of the Defendants, their employees or agent.

Defendant’s Case

Apart from admitting that the Plaintiff fell into an inspection pit the Defendants denied all other allegations made against them.

The Defendants argued that there were barricades, fencing and guardrails placed along the inspection area as well as warning signs to prevent visitors from walking across or into the said inspection area and falling into the inspection pit.

The Defendants submitted that the said accident was caused wholly by or contributed to by the Plaintiff’s own negligence in that he failed to keep a proper lookout for himself and failed to heed the warning signs. The Defendants’ pleaded particulars of negligence against the Plaintiff are set out at paragraph 6 of their Defence¹.

Issue

Central to this case is whether the Defendants had breached their common law duty and/or statutory duty and/or that the accident was caused by the negligence of the Defendants, their employees or agent. If so, was there contributory negligence on the part of the Plaintiff and if so, to what extent?

The Law and the Facts

At the start of the trial, which was bifurcated, it was clear that the Plaintiff was largely to be blamed for what happened. The Plaintiff claimed that as a result of the fall, he sustained fractures to several of his left ribs, fracture to his lower back and some other minor injuries.

The general tort of negligence had subsumed the law of occupier’s liability following the CA’s case of See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lum Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd².

Based on the facts of this case: - What was the standard of care owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff? Was there a breach of duty on the part of the Defendants that resulted or caused the Plaintiff the injuries he claimed he suffered?

The Plaintiff withdrew his reliance on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitar on the 1st day of trial³. However, he alleged that there were safety lapses in the Defendant’s premises and argued as follows:- Lack of sufficient barricades, fencings or guardrails to prevent visitors from entering the inspection area (where the inspection pit is located); Warning signs were placed at locations where they were not visible to visitors at all times due to obstruction by vehicles that were moving in the inspection lanes; and The coloured paint markings of the inspection pits and the demarcations on the floor to alert visitors of the danger zone were not bright enough and some of these paint markings had faded at the material time.

Whilst I agreed with the Plaintiff that the guardrails (barricades and/or fencings) could have been extended from the start of the inspection path, right to the other end of the inspection path, I was not entirely in agreement with the Plaintiff who suggested that there should be no access to cross over from inspection Lane 3 to 4 via the gap between the short barricade and the control station. To seal up the gap totally will greatly hamper the movement of the Defendants’ staff carrying out their work. In any case, that area was out of bounds to all unauthorised personnel, which included the Plaintiff.

Clearly, there were foreseeable risk that if someone were to stray into the prohibited zone or area, that person may be injured. In this case, the inspection area was demarcated by the barriers, warning signs and colour painted markings. However, the standard of care did not require the Defendants to eliminate all foreseeable risk but to take reasonable precautions to reduce the foreseeable risk to a reasonable level. Further, “All...