Teng Ah Kow and Another v Ho Sek Chiu and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin J
• Judgment Date: 20 September 1993
• Neutral Citation: [1993] SGCA 67
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 108 of 1992
• Date: 20 September 1993
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1993
• Plaintiff Counsel: Karuppan Chettiar and Lalita Seenivasan (Murphy & Dunbar)
• Citation: [1993] SGCA 67
• Defendant Counsel: Genevieve Tan (Allen & Gledhill),Benedict Chan and Chan Yuen Leng (Goh Poh & Pnrs)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Gas explosion in kitchen,Adverse inference in failing to call witness,s 116(g) Evidence Act,Evidence,Presumptions,Res ipsa loquitur,Negligence,Whether restaurant proprietors and gas supplier liable,Duty of care,Whether res ipsa loquitur applicable,Tort

Cur Adv Vult

This is an appeal against a decision of the High Court dismissing a claim by the plaintiffs for personal injuries suffered on account of the negligence of the defendants. It was agreed between the parties at the trial that only the question of liability need be determined at that stage, with damages to be assessed by the registrar if the need arose.

The first and second plaintiffs, Teng Ah Kow (`Teng`) and Kwok Chuan Yuen (`Kwok`), were employed by the first and second defendants as cooks in their restaurant business carried on under the name of Sun Kum Leng Restaurant. The plaintiffs started work there two months before the accident, although they had considerable previous experience elsewhere as cooks. The third defendant was the supplier of gas (in cylinders) to the restaurant. The gas cylinders were connected by pipes to a stove with five burners where cooking was carried out by the plaintiffs.

On 13 September 1986 an explosion and fire occurred in the kitchen when Teng was turning on a gas cylinder in order to enable Kwok to cook. Both persons suffered severe burns. The plaintiffs alleged that the first and second defendants were negligent in, inter alia, (i) failing to provide and/or maintain safe appliances for the plaintiffs` use or (ii) failing to provide a safe system of work. The plaintiffs further pleaded that they would rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. As against the third defendant, the plaintiffs alleged that he had supplied a gas cyclinder to the restaurant which he knew or ought to have known had a faulty valve/nozzle (host and connector knob) or had failed to maintain the said gas cyclinder in good working order.

In their defence, the first and second defendants denied that they were in any way negligent and pleaded that if they were liable to the plaintiffs, they would look to the third defendant for indemnity and/or contribution.

At the hearing below, the third defendant issued a third party notice against Mobil Oil Singapore Pte Ltd claiming indemnity or contribution from Mobil Oil in the event that the third defendant was found liable to the plaintiffs. Mobil Oil is not a party to this appeal.

The kitchen equipment

In the words of the learned trial judge, the physical state of the kitchen where the plaintiffs worked was as follows:

The kitchen of the restaurant in which the plaintiffs were employed as cooks by the restaurant was rectangular in shape and about 30ft by 15ft. It had a door towards the right end of the longer side of one wall and another across the kitchen to the left in the shorter wall. Against the wall opposite the longer wall which had a door in it, and in the corner with the shorter wall which had a door, was the stove. The stove was equipped with five burners. Next to the stove was the refrigerator. The gas cylinders which fed the burners in the stove with gas were placed against the shorter wall opposite the shorter wall which had a door in it. According to Teng, the gas cylinders were about ten feet from the stove.

There were five gas cylinders in all which fed gas to the stove ... Each of the five gas cylinders was connected separately to a simple metal tube or pipe which ran along the wall and behind the refrigerator to the stove from where individual connections were made separately to each of the five burners. Each burner was fitted with a pilot light (and) ... a switch. There was a main safety switch fitted in the metal tubing leading from the gas cylinders to the stove ...

The connection of the five gas cylinders to the single metal tube or pipe ... was effected by a metal screw and nut joint ... from which was led a hose of about 3ft in length. At the other end of the hose was attached a connector knob ... The five sets of hose and connector knobs, one for each of the five gas cylinders, were permanently attached to the single metal tube or pipe.

The piping system of feeding gas from the gas cylinders to the stove was installed by the third defendant. The gas cylinders, each of about 31U2ft in height, were always kept in an upright position. On the top of each gas cylinder was attached a contraption called a regulator valve. A nozzle protruded sideways from the regulator valve to which the connector knob was screwed. The topmost part of the regulator valve was the hand control knob, which was attached by a screw to a spindle or threaded shaft. When the knob was turned anti-clockwise or clockwise, the spindle or threaded shaft would be moved up and down. A stud-like device was attached to the bottom end of the spindle or threaded shaft, on which was a washer to prevent the spindle or threaded shaft from being screwed out of the regulator valve as well as to seal the gap between the spindle or threaded shaft and the outercasing of the regulator valve. The underside of the stud-like device was the stud onto which the critical part of the regulator valve, a plug or O-ring component, was slotted.

The operation of the O-ring component and the spindle or threaded shaft was further explained by the learned judge as follows:

The O-ring component is made up of three component parts, that is, a rubberized ring called the `O` ring held between two metal rings to form one unit. The underside of the O-ring component is packed with a synthetic substance which gives when the spindle or threaded shaft is screwed tight into place over the `seat` at the bottom of the shaft into which the spindle or threaded shaft screws in. Thus the gas in the cylinder is locked in when the hand control knob is turned clockwise screwing the spindle or threaded shaft and the O-ring component downwards into place over the seat. When the hand control knob is turned anti-clockwise it raises the spindle or threaded shaft and the O-ring component upwards clearing the side opening to the nozzle so that the gas can now escape through the nozzle and the hose connected to the nozzle by the connector knob to the system.

The spindle or threaded shaft and the O-ring component are locked in place by a locking nut which is a largish nut with several rows of threads and ... is tightened at manufacture with a torque of 900kg per centimetre. Both expert witnesses were agreed that the locking nut cannot be loosened by hand. Some tool like a spanner and considerable force would be required to loosen the locking nut. Although two and a half turns anti-clockwise of the hand control knob will open the regulator valve fully it cannot be turned further as it then turns on the locking nut which has the same threading but because of the torque on the locking nut further pressure by hand on the hand control knob anti-clockwise will not loosen the locking nut. Thus, by hand manipulation alone the spindle or threaded shaft and the O-ring component cannot be screwed out of the regulator valve.

Events leading to the accident

Evidence was led by the plaintiffs that, on 10 September 1986, three gas cylinders were delivered by the third defendant to the restaurant and that one of them had something wrong with it. They saw the third defendant placing the cylinders near the door at the wall on the side of the kitchen opposite to the side where the stove was situated. It was the duty of a kitchen help, one Ah Chung, to receive gas cylinders and connect and disconnect them to the system. This point was not in dispute as the second defendant admitted that. The second defendant had never seen the two plaintiffs change cylinders. The plaintiffs said that they overheard Ah Chung telling the employer, the second defendant, that there was something wrong with one of the cylinders delivered on 10 September 1986. The plaintiffs claimed that, on 11 September 1986, they had also overheard Ah Chung reminding the second defendant of the faulty cylinder. They maintained that Ah Chung told them what the fault with the cylinder was but they could not at the trial recall what it was. Be that as it may, there was evidence from the second defendant himself who told the court that Ah Chung did tell him on 12 September 1986 that one of the cylinders delivered had a loose cap. The second defendant said that he even went to check it and found that the hand control knob of a cylinder was wobbly. However, he did not smell any gas. He marked that cylinder with white chalk and told Ah Chung and the plaintiffs not to touch that cylinder until the third defendant had attended to it.

There was a conflict in evidence as to the day on which the second defendant was told of the faulty cylinder by Ah Chung. We do not think this aspect is that material. In any case the learned judge found it was on 12 September 1986. In turn, the second defendant called the third defendant to attend to the fault. The third defendant did turn up later on the same day, but found nothing wrong with the three spare cylinders which were placed against the wall; in fact he also found nothing wrong with the five cylinders which were at that time connected to the system to feed the stove. At the time when the third defendant came to inspect the cylinders, the plaintiffs were not present. But later in the evening of the same day they overheard Ah Chung telling another person that the gas supplier had been to the restaurant that afternoon.

At around noon on the day of the accident, 13 September 1986, an order for soup was received by Kwok. He turned on a burner and found that there was no gas. There was no smell of gas in the kitchen either. He asked Teng to turn on another cylinder. Teng turned on the hand control knob of the gas cylinder nearest to him. The moment that was done, a hissing sound of gas escaping from the cylinder was heard. Both Kwok and Teng could smell gas. Teng tried to turn off the knob of that cylinder. Kwok also rushed to help him. Then there was a loud explosion and fire. Both the plaintiffs suffered severe burns.

The learned judge found that at the time of the accident not one of the five pilot lights had been lit....