UDDIN MOHAMMAD ZOSIM v CES ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION PTE.LTD.

Facts

Uddin Mohammad Zosim, the claimant, was employed by CES Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd, the defendant, to do general construction work. In District Court Originating Claim No 1487 of 2023 he sued it in negligence and for breach of statutory duties under the Workplace Safety & Health Act 2006 for injuries from a workplace accident. On the first day of trial he amended his case to put the accident on 26 April 2022. He claimed that while bending rebars with a rebar bender the rebar broke and he fell, landing on metal formwork, and he alleged the defendant failed to provide a safe system of work, supervision, extra workers, a harness and proper tools.

The defendant denied negligence. It said its site supervisor saw no broken rebar, only some chipping of the precast wall and abrasions on the claimant's forearm, that the claimant declined to see a doctor, and that he had done the task safely since joining in 2019. It argued his accounts of the date and manner of the fall were inconsistent and that he did not complain of back pain until he saw a doctor on 9 May 2022. The trial was bifurcated, with only responsibility for the accident to be decided first.

Issues

1. Whether the claimant could rely on breaches of statutory duty under the Workplace Safety & Health Act 2006
2. How the accident happened and whether the claimant injured his back on 26 April 2022
3. Whether the defendant breached its duty of care by failing to provide a safe system of work

Holding

The District Judge dismissed the claim, finding that the claimant had failed to prove that the defendant breached its duty of care, so the remaining issues did not need to be decided. The parties were directed to file written submissions on costs within 14 days.

Reasoning

On statutory duty, section 60(1) of the Workplace Safety & Health Act 2006 states that the Act confers no right of civil action for its contravention, so that part of the claim had no basis. Applying the test in Chen Qiangshi v Hong Fei CDY Construction Pte Ltd [2014] SGHC 177, it was undisputed that the employer owed a duty of care.

On how the accident happened, the court accepted the claimant's account. His confusion about the date did not damage his credibility: the date on his witness statement was written in a different ink and he denied writing it, and his description matched an accident on 26 April 2022 that the defendant's own witnesses described. Both supervisors testified at trial that the rebar had broken off, departing from their affidavits, and one said he had signed his affidavit without fully understanding it. The delay in seeing a doctor was explained by his supervisor going on leave, and a doctor testified that his symptoms were consistent with a fall on that date.

On breach, however, the burden lay on the claimant and he produced no evidence of how the defendant fell short. He agreed he was an experienced worker with 7 years of experience bending rebars, that the job could be done by one person without supervision, and that the bender was in working order and long enough to use with his feet on the ground. He accepted he had lifted his heel while pushing, which was within his own control. The court accepted the safety officer's evidence that the rebar was about 2.2 metres high and that a platform and heavy electric machine would bring new hazards. He gave no evidence of industry practice, did not plead res ipsa loquitur, and did not explain why the rebar came loose. The cases he cited, Hao Wei (S) Pte Ltd v Rasan Selvan [2008] SGHC 148 and Parno v SC Marine Pte Ltd [1999] 3 SLR(R) 377, involved untrained or unsupervised workers and unsafe systems, and were distinguished.

From the judgment