Tan Swee Lian Christiana v Kuan Aik Hong Construction Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lim Mei Yee Elaine
• Judgment Date: 26 July 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGDC 157
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Case No 3379 of 2019
• Published date: 30 July 2022
• Year: 2022
• Hearing Date: 20 July 2022,24 June 2022,27 June 2022,09 May 2022,10 May 2022,11 May 2022
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Lam Kuet Keng Steven John (Templars Law LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Eu Hai Meng, Michael and Ms Alicia Chia Si Min (Civic Legal LLC)
• Subject Matter: Tort,Negligence,Causation,Contributory negligence,Remoteness,Assessment of damages
• Citation: [2022] SGDC 157

District Judge Lim Mei Yee Elaine: Introduction

This action arises from a flooding incident on 19 March 2018 (the “Incident”) in the plaintiff’s flat at Blk 127 Yishun Street 11 #XXX Singapore 760127 (the “Premises”). The defendant was the contractor engaged by the Housing and Development Board (“HDB”) to renovate, among other things, two toilets in the Premises under the Home Improvement Program (“HIP”). On the day of the Incident, the defendant had laid the pipes of the two toilets at the Premises. Subsequently that evening, water leaked from a dislodged pipe in the common toilet of the Premises, resulting in the flooding of the Premises and the flat below it. The flooding caused substantial damage to the items in the Premises.

After the Incident, on or about 20 March 2018, the defendant’s workers helped the plaintiff to, among other things, shift the items and furniture in the Premises, clean up and/or dry the Premises, items and furniture, and solve the water seepage issue which had caused the flooding. The plaintiff also packed and moved her items into boxes (so that her damaged furniture could be disposed of and/or replaced) and cleaned up the Premises.

The parties’ cases

In a nutshell, the plaintiff claims that in the course of packing and/or moving the items in the Premises, her pre-existing cervical spondylosis was aggravated and became symptomatic. She sued the defendant in negligence for causing the flooding and consequently, the damage to the items and the personal injuries she sustained in the course of packing and/or moving the items.

The defendant concedes that its negligence had caused the flooding and consequently, damage to the items in the Premises.¹ However, the defendant disputes that its negligence had caused the plaintiff to suffer injuries. The defendant submits that those injuries were caused wholly or contributed to by the plaintiff’s failure to request for assistance to pack and move the items and the unsafe manner in which she packed and moved the items. Furthermore, those injuries were too remote. The defendant also disputes the quantification of certain heads of the plaintiff’s claims arising out of those injuries.

Issues to be determined

The trial before me was unbifurcated.

Based on the parties’ cases, there are three issues to be determined: Were the plaintiff’s injuries caused or contributed to by the defendant’s negligence or her own conduct? Were the plaintiff’s injuries foreseeable and not too remote? In the event the Court finds that the defendant is wholly or partially liable for the plaintiff’s injuries, the quantum of damages the plaintiff is entitled to.

After considering the pleadings, evidence and submissions, I find that the plaintiff’s injuries were foreseeable and were wholly caused by the defendant’s negligence. I assess her entitlement to damages as follows:

(I) Special damages
Pre-trial medical expenses	$5,522.43
Pre-trial transport expenses	$285
Replacement cost for damaged items	$3,650.80
Total	$9,458.23
(II) General damages
Pain and suffering	$16,000
Loss of earning capacity	$0
Future medical expenses	$1,500
Future transport expenses	$50
Total	$17,550

I set out below the reasons for my decision.

Issue 1: Were the plaintiff’s injuries caused or contributed to by the defendant’s negligence or her own conduct

Two questions arise for my determination under the broad issue of causation and contributorily negligence: Has causation in fact – namely, the but-for test – been established? Was the plaintiff’s failure to request for assistance to pack and move the items, and the manner in which she packed and moved the items, contributorily negligent or a novus actus interveniens?

The applicable legal principles are well settled: To succeed in her claim for negligence, the plaintiff must satisfy both tests of causation in fact and causation in law: see Greenway Environmental Waste Management Pte Ltd v Cramoil Singapore Pte Ltd [2021] SGHC 203 (“Greenway”) at [148].² For causation in fact, the plaintiff must show, on the balance of probabilities, that but for the defendant’s negligence, she would not have been injured. In applying the but-for test to determine whether the defendant’s negligence was a cause of the loss, one should eliminate such conduct mentally and consider whether the loss would still have occurred. If the loss would not have occurred when such conduct is eliminated, the conduct is a condicio sine qua non for the loss: see Greenway at [149], [152].³ The doctrine of novus actus interveniens is an aspect of causation in law. In determining whether the plaintiff’s conduct constitutes a novus actus interveniens, the test is whether her conduct was so wholly unreasonable that it eclipses the original wrongdoing and may be deemed to be a wholly independent cause of the damage: see Greenway at [152], [153], [180].⁴ In this regard, the more voluntary the act, the less reasonable it is and the more potent its causative effect. However, even deliberate acts may be involuntary, for example, where a person is forced to make a response to a situation brought about by the defendant’s negligence and such a response is foreseeable. Careless behaviour is generally less potent causally than a deliberate act: see Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 22nd ed. (Sweet & Maxwell, 2017) (“Clerk & Lindsell”) at [2-108].⁵ Turning to the defence of contributorily negligence, it applies where the cause of the plaintiff’s loss is a combination of her fault and the defendant’s wrongdoing. The defendant must show that the plaintiff ought to have objectively foreseen that her failure to act prudently could result in hurting herself, and failed to take reasonable measures to guard against that foreseeable harm. The standard of care expected of the plaintiff is measured against a person of ordinary prudence: see Asnah bte Ab Rahman v Li Jianlin [2016] 2 SLR 944 at [18], [20].⁶ The situation that the plaintiff was placed in as a result of the defendant’s conduct should be considered in determining whether the plaintiff acted reasonably: see Clerk & Lindsell at [3-92].⁷ Thus, the fact that the plaintiff had to take a risk does not amount to contributory negligence if the risk were created by the defendant’s negligence and was one which a reasonably prudent man in the plaintiff’s position would take. Moreover, mere errors of judgment do not ordinarily count against a plaintiff, as a person’s conduct in the face of sudden emergency cannot be judged from the standpoint of what would have been reasonable in light of hindsight. There is a distinction between mere heedlessness or errors of judgment on the one hand, and culpable neglect on the other hand: see Parno v SC Marine Pte Ltd [1999] 3 SLR(R) 377 (“Parno”) at [64].⁸

Causation in fact is established

In my judgment, causation in fact is established.

It is the plaintiff’s unchallenged evidence that although she was diagnosed with cervical spondylosis in 2009, she recovered in one month after undergoing occupational therapy at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, such that for the span of more than eight years from 2010 until late April 2018, she did not feel any pain from her condition. In fact, in 2014, she had managed her move into the Premises by herself, and between December 2014 and the date of the Incident, she had been serving in her church as a server/usher on alternate Sundays where she assisted in setting up the venue and ushering congregation members to their seats.⁹ However, in or around late April 2018, after a month of packing and moving the items in the Premises, she started experiencing pain over her right shoulder, right upper back and numbness over her right hand.¹⁰

I accept the plaintiff’s aforesaid evidence, which is consistent with the documentary evidence before me. Nothing in the documents indicates that the plaintiff’s cervical spondylosis had been symptomatic between 2010 and the date of the Incident. On the contrary, Dr Lor Kah Ho Kelvin (“Dr Lor”)’s medical report dated 12 October 2018 recorded that according to the plaintiff, her pain over her right shoulder and right upper back, associated with numbness over the right hand, had started one week prior to her visit to Khoo Teck Puat Hospital (“KTPH”)’s Emergency Department on 29 April 2018.¹¹ Consistent with this record, the documents show that the plaintiff had visited a physiotherapy clinic for treatment only on 26 April 2018, a few days before she visited KTPH’s Emergency Department.¹²

The flooding of the Premises was precisely the reason why the plaintiff had to pack and move the items in the Premises. The medical evidence is clear that in the course of packing and moving the items, the plaintiff had likely aggravated her pre-existing cervical spondylosis. In particular, it is Dr Lor’s unchallenged evidence that it is reasonable that the repetitive movements the plaintiff undertook during the packing and moving of her items resulted in aggravation of her cervical spondylosis by triggering the sensitivity in her nerves.¹³ Dr Cen Xiaoping Dawn (“Dr Cen”), who saw the plaintiff at KTPH’s Orthopedic Specialist Outpatient Clinic on 18 May 2018, also took a similar view that the plaintiff’s packing and moving of her items had likely exacerbated her pre-existing condition.¹⁴

If the defendant had not been negligent in causing the flooding, the Premises would not have been flooded in the first place and the plaintiff would not have had to pack and move the items in the Premises. I therefore find that but for the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff would not have been injured in the course of packing and moving the items.

The plaintiff’s conduct was not contributorily negligent or a novus actus interveniens

The defendant submits that the plaintiff had wholly caused her injuries or...