Man sues contractor after tripping over hump in void deck; judge finds he’s 75% responsible for fall

Noting that the accident happened in broad daylight with no visible structure obstructing Mr Choo’s view, Judge Sia said: “The claimant should have already been aware that there were temporary toilets in the area and that the block was having upgrading works.

“He should therefore have been more alert to the possibility of hazards as he emerged from the passageway.”

She said he should bear the bulk of responsibility for the accident.

The judge added that she did not find Mr Choo to be a particularly credible witness.

For instance, despite Mr Choo stating in his affidavit that he had driven to the wake in Hougang, his evidence on the stand was that he had been dropped off by a friend.

Mr Choo also claimed that he made a police report on the same day of the accident, but the report itself revealed that he made it three days later.

“More importantly, the claimant’s oral testimony of how the accident happened was equivocal,” said the judge.

Mr Choo said in his affidavit that he had tripped over the pipe, but later testified on the stand that he had fallen onto the concrete hump.

Meanwhile, the referral letter from Sengkang General Hospital where he sought treatment stated that he had fallen in the carpark, while the police report he made stated he had tripped over a cement structure.

Said Judge Sia: “When the claimant was re-examined on the inconsistency between his evidence in court and the version stated in the hospital referral letter, the claimant explained that he tripped over the pipe, over the cement and rolled to the carpark because the hump was near to the carpark.”

“I find this evidence to be incredible and totally lacking in credibility, given the set-up in the area,” the judge added.

“If he had tripped over the pipe, which was his version of the events, he could not have also tripped over the cement and it was unclear how he then rolled to the carpark, given that the hump itself was measured at 2.5m by 1m.”

However, Judge Sia said she found that HPC Builders had fallen below the degree of care demanded of a reasonably careful and skilled contractor, and had breached its duty of care to Mr Choo.

“The existence of the hump presented an unexpected variation in the level of the passenger walkway and it was reasonably foreseeable that a member of the public who may not have noticed the hump despite the yellow marking or expected the height of the hump may trip over it and suffer injuries,” said the judge.

Judge Sia said the area should have been cordoned off from public access because of the tripping hazard posed by the pipe and the hump.

“However, the claimant was also at fault for failing to take reasonable precautions to ensure his own safety by keeping a proper lookout and paying more attention to his surroundings,” said the judge.

The trial on the remaining issues of liability and quantum will proceed.