CHOO MEE HUA v HPC BUILDERS PTE LTD

Facts

HPC Builders Pte Ltd was carrying out HDB Home Improvement Programme works at blocks in Hougang Avenue 8. While toilets in the flats were being upgraded, it set up temporary toilets at the void decks, with a PVC pipe running to the sewerage manhole. After cleaners from the town council complained that the pipe blocked their battery-operated carts, the barricades around the area were removed and a concrete hump was in place over the pipe near the manhole, painted yellow.

On 14 March 2023, around 11:30 a.m., the claimant, Choo Mee Hua, was leaving a friend's wake at Blk 542 when he tripped and fell near the temporary toilets, injuring his face, hand and shoulder. He sued the contractor in negligence in District Court Originating Claim No 1100 of 2023, pleading that he tripped over the pipe and that there were no barriers or warnings. The defendant said he would have seen the pipe had he kept a proper lookout. After the accident the defendant put barricades back around the area until the toilets were removed. This bifurcated trial on responsibility was heard by District Judge Sia Aik Kor.

Issues

1. Whether the claimant tripped over the pipe or over the concrete hump
2. Whether the defendant, as occupier, owed the claimant a duty of care
3. Whether the defendant breached that duty
4. Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent, and how responsibility should be apportioned

Holding

The court allowed the claim in part, finding the defendant liable but apportioning responsibility for the accident at 75% to the claimant and 25% to the defendant. The trial on the remaining issues of liability and quantum was to proceed on the basis that the defendant was 25% responsible.

Reasoning

The judge did not find the claimant a credible witness. His evidence on how he reached the wake, the route he took, who took photographs and when he made his police report conflicted with other evidence. The hospital referral said he fell in the carpark, and his police report and his account to his doctor both said he tripped over the cement structure, while a friend said he was unsure which he tripped over. It was more likely he tripped over the hump. Though not his pleaded case, the defendant was not prejudiced, as the pipe and hump formed one set of works and both were fully canvassed.

Applying See Toh Siew Kee v Ho An Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd & ors [2013] 3 SLR 284 and Awang bin Dollah v Shun Shing Construction & Engineering Co Ltd and other appeals [1997] 2 SLR 746, the defendant had sufficient control of the area to be an occupier and owed a duty to lawful entrants in this public space.

On breach, the HDB requirements, the BCA Code and the ISO standard were evidence of the standard of care, consistent with Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd v Moh Seng Cranes Pte Ltd and others [2014] 2 SLR 360. A hump around 200 mm high was far steeper than the 1:10 gradient allowed, and pedestrians emerging from the passageway might not notice it. Barricades had been used before and were quickly reinstated after the accident, showing the cost of precautions was low, so the defendant fell below the standard of a reasonable contractor.

On contributory negligence, the claimant could not be faulted for using the passageway, but he must have seen the temporary structures, the accident occurred in daylight, and he conceded he would have seen the yellow hump had he kept a proper lookout. Weighing causative potency and blameworthiness, and comparing Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2668 v Rott George Hugo [2013] 3 SLR 787, he bore the greater share.

From the judgment