Ferrari owner fails to get compensation from employer of man who damaged supercar in prank

Ng added that an e-mail sent by a company representative to Tan apologising for the situation did not amount to an admission that the company was responsible.

The judge said: “The apology concerned Mr Farley’s conceitless behaviour which inconvenienced the claimant. It did not state that Mr Farley was acting in the course of his employment or that the defendant accepted legal responsibility for the damage allegedly caused by Mr Farley.” 

The quantum of damages sought was not specified in the judgment. The case was filed in a magistrate’s court, which has a maximum civil claim limit of $60,000.

‘Laughter was unmistakeable’

On the evening of Aug 8, 2023, Tan reverse-parked his car in a basement carpark in Scotts Road.

When he returned the next morning, he found the pickup parked very close to the right side of his car and discovered the damage to the wing mirror and door panel.

Footage from the Ferrari’s front-facing in-car camera showed that shortly before midnight, Farley drove the pickup past the supercar and reversed into the adjacent lot despite the carpark being almost empty.

The camera could not capture whether the pickup made contact with the wing mirror.

The video showed one of the four passengers turning to look left at the supercar, just as the pickup’s rear bumper was likely to have drawn alongside the wing mirror.

A crisp “tak” sound was recorded just as the rear bumper was probably level with the mirror.

The group then stepped out of the pickup and stood within view of the camera. Some of them pointed their mobile phones at the vehicles, apparently to take photographs.

Ng said: “The audio from the video is not clear enough to make out what exactly they said, but their laughter was unmistakable: Mr Farley had deliberately parked unusually close to the supercar as a prank.”

The judge found that Farley breached his duty of care to other carpark users by deliberately parking unreasonably close to the supercar without taking reasonable precautions, such as using a ground guide.

Farley’s breach caused damage to the supercar’s wing mirror, the judge said.

The “tak” sound was likely caused by contact between the two vehicles, he said.

This was consistent with the relative positions of the two vehicles when the pickup began reversing; the pickup’s length, wheelbase, turning radius and trajectory; and the photographs showing the narrow gap between the stationary vehicles.

Ng also concluded that Farley’s negligence resulted in the damage to the door panel when the front passenger door of the pickup was opened.

The judge said this was supported by the location of the damage, the very narrow gap between the two vehicles and the circumstances in which the passengers got down from the pickup.

“Having parked the pickup so close to the supercar, with the front passenger’s door facing it, Mr Farley ought reasonably to have foreseen the risk that the door might strike the supercar if his passenger attempted to alight normally,” said the judge.