Zakaria bin Putra Ali v Low Keng Huat Construction Company (S) Pte Ltd and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: K S Rajah JC
• Judgment Date: 23 November 1993
• Neutral Citation: [1993] SGHC 277
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 1993
• Published date: 12 November 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Benedict Chan (Goh Poh & Pnrs)
• Defendant Counsel: K K Tang (Tang & Pnrs),Nicholas Tey (Yeo-Leong & Peh)
• Citation: [1993] SGHC 277

Judgment:

Coram: K S Rajah JC

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff is a bar bender/casual labourer and his claim is for damages suffered for injuries suffered in the course of his employment. The 1st defendants are the main contractors. The 2nd defendants are a partnership and are sub-contractors. The 3rd defendant is a sub-contractor, and the sole proprietor of the firm known as S.M.E Building Construction.

Various questions of fact and law fell to be determined. The main questions were:

(1) Whether the plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment?

(2) Whether any of the defendants employed the plaintiff?

(3) Whether the defendants were negligent as occupiers or employers?

(4) Whether there has been a breach of statutory duties?

(5) Whether the plaintiff was negligent?

(6) Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to this case?

(7) Quantum of damages.

Plaintiff's Pleaded Case

The plaintiff's pleaded case is that he was recruited to work at the worksite by the servants or agents of the 1st, 2nd or 3rd defendants, and that at all material times the plaintiff received instructions, directions and was under the supervision and control of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants or their servants or agents.

The plaintiff is 37 years old. He first started to work in Singapore in 1976 and worked for various periods till 1979. He worked between harvesting and sowing Work permits were obtained for him and renewed. He has about nine years experience in bar bending and knows that the rods should be tied properly. Between 1979 and 1985, the plaintiff was in Malaysia.

On the morning of the accident, the plaintiff was tying steel rods at the 5th level of the uncompleted building at the worksite when according to the 3rd defendant the steel reinforcement or vertical column collapsed on the plaintiff pinning him to the ground. The words steel beams and steel rods were used loosely.

The plaintiff's evidence is that as a result of a letter sent by "Ah Poh", whom he identified to be Tan Kim Kiew a partner in the 2nd defendants firm, he was told that there was work in Singapore. The plaintiff came to Singapore in response to that letter sent by Tan Kim Kiew and started work in Singapore on 3 June 1988. After the accident the 2nd defendants sent the plaintiff a letter under the letterhead of the 2nd defendants dated 29 August 1988. The letter was in Malay and signed by Tan Kim Kiew (Ah Poh). The certified translation reads:

TAN & YAP CONSTRUCTION

Our Ref :

Your Ref :

Date: 29 AUG 1988

ZAKARIA BIN PUTRA ALI

3+ MILES JALAN PAMPOI

KG KG HAJAH FATIMAH

JOHOR BAHRU.

To

I hope that you can come to Singapore as soon as possible together with your documents which you received from the hospital in Singapore. Apart from that, you are requested to be present at the hospital in Singapore for an examination. The reason is, you can report about your examination to the insurance company for your compensation.

Please contact me when you arrive in Singapore at telephone number 3442607.

Yours sincerely

TAN & YAP CONSTRUCTION

sgd: illegible

The plaintiff was unable to produce the letter sent by Ah Poh but the letter of 29 August 1988 shows that the 2nd defendants could have written to the plaintiff. I find as a fact that the 2nd defendants wrote a letter and reject the 2nd defendants' evidence that no letter was written to the plaintiff or anybody else.

The 1st defendants were engaged in the building construction project known as New Tech Park along Lorong Chuan. The 2nd and 3rd defendants were sub-contractors at the worksite. All the defendants were performing building construction works at the worksite and were occupiers of the worksite.

The plaintiff met Ah Poh before he started work. Ah Poh took the plaintiff to Lorong Chuan. Ah Poh did not ask the plaintiff if he was looking for a job nor did the plaintiff ask Ah Poh if he had a job for him. The plaintiff said he did not ask about a job because Ah Poh already knew that the plaintiff and his friends were there looking for jobs and there was no necessity to ask. Ah Poh also knew the rate to be paid. Ah Poh took the plaintiff to "Tao Choo" who supervised the workers at the worksite.

"Tao Choo" is a person who supervised the workers and is a subordinate of Ah Poh. The plaintiff asked the supervisor about his work. The supervisor gave the plaintiff a note on the number of rods that had to be assembled before tying them together. The plaintiff had to assemble steel rods according to instructions together with the other workers. He started work at 8 am and finished work at 5 pm on the first day.

Lodging

Ah Poh provided lodgings for the plaintiff at the Ang Mo Kio site and paid the plaintiff $26 a day when he worked for Ah Poh at the Tampines site. The plaintiff was paid after the accident. Payments were made to his wife and to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's wife was paid $1,000 for "transport expenses to visit the plaintiff at the hospital" and the plaintiff received $2,000 when he was able to get up and walk. The 2nd defendants have denied making any payments. I accept the plaintiff's evidence that there was payment and reject the 2nd defendants' evidence who has not denied paying the hospital charges.

The 2nd defendants stood as guarantors to pay the hospital bills of the plaintiff and paid the plaintiff's hospital fees.

The plaintiff is unable to provide full particulars of his contract of employment in writing but has given oral evidence as to how he came to be at the worksite and working on a steel frame that collapsed and caused injuries to him and a fellow worker resulting in their being admitted for treatment at the Toa Payoh Hospital. The surface facts point to the 2nd defendants as the plaintiff's employer.

On the morning of the second day when the plaintiff went to the 5th floor the beams were already there but had not been assembled. The plaintiff worked on the rods and tied them. After he had finished working at the top, he worked at the bottom of the cage. It was necessary for him to crawl inside the cage because the tying could not be done from the outside.

The height of the cage of steel rods was approximately to the chest level of the plaintiff who is about 5 ft tall and the width of the frame was roughly the length so that the cage was like a square. Whilst the plaintiff was working on the structure it collapsed on the plaintiff. It fell on the plaintiff from a height of approximately 4ft when he was in a squatting position. The plaintiff was unable to say if a crane was involved in the accident but there was a crane lifting beams in the vicinity. There was some confusion over the plaintiff having said he had fallen from the 5th storey and reference made to the crane. The plaintiff was not sufficiently articulate to give accurate descriptions or a refined answer to searching questions. The discrepancies in the evidence did not affect the credibility of the plaintiff whose problem was one of understanding the questions and expression than being economical with the truth. I found him to be a honest witness trying his best to recall events and answer the questions.

Injuries

The plaintiff suffered severe injuries and stopped work after the accident. The injuries are set out by Dr Don in his report.

Dr Don has said:

1. There is no doubt that the plaintiff was severely injured in the accident at work resulting in injuries to the spine, right ankle/foot and left chest wall.

2. The main disability is the gross stiffness in the right ankle/foot arising from the compound dislocation of the talus and the gross atrophy in the right lower limb.

3. Although the power in the right lower limb is still in the region of grade IV (normal grade V), he is mainly affected by the loss of muscle bulk (atrophy), the distal stiffness and shortening of the right leg.

4. It is likely that the plaintiff had some degree of spinal cord injury at the cauda equina level (L3) resulting in loss of sensation of L3 right thigh, frequency of micturation and incomplete erection of penis.

5. In addition, the plaintiff still has backache from the spinal injury and pain in the right ankle/foot. The pain in the right hip is probably due to shortening of the right leg and stiffness in the ankle/foot during weight bearing ambulation, running and climbing steps.

6. The flattened deformity of the left chest wall anteriorly is also quite significant and could cause pain during deep breathing with expansion of the ribs during inspiration and contraction during expiration. 7. In the long term, the plaintiff was likely to develop osteoarthritis of the right ankle joint and probably right hip and lumbar spine which will add to his pain and stiffness.

8. The plaintiff will not be able to resume work as a bar bender which requires considerable mobility and strength.

9. He will require long term medical care and attention for relief of pain and urinary tract infection if bladder is affected.

10. Cosmetically, he has a visible kyphus in the spine, flattened left chest wall and scars over his right ankle/foot.

Dr Don estimated the medical costs for the scars over the right ankle and foot would be:

1. Pain: analgesics - $50-$100 p.m $600-$1,200 per year. 2. Urinary tract infection; antibiotics $300 per year. Total up to $1,500 per year.

The variations in the costs of the analgesics required by the plaintiff arises from response and preference by the patient.

Defendants' Doctor

The plaintiff was examined by Mr Chang who after noting the medical history of the plaintiff and the results of his examination has said:

Radiographs performed on 23.4.93 showed an old compression fracture of L3 with slight anterior wedging of the body. The right talus showed an old united fracture with a screw across the body. This fracture was complicated by avascular necrosis and collapse of the body of the talus with

(1) advanced secondary osteoarthritis and partial bony ankylosis of the ankle joint which formed the joint above it.

(2)...