\n<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE \u2013 A man sued a building contractor for negligence after he tripped and fell over a concrete hump at a void deck in Hougang where upgrading works were in progress.<\/p>\n
In turn, the contractor said the accident was caused by the man\u2019s own negligence, as he had failed to keep a proper lookout or take adequate precautions for his own personal safety.<\/p>\n
In her judgment on March 11, District Judge Sia Aik Kor apportioned responsibility for the accident at 75 per cent to the man, Mr Choo Mee Hua, and 25 per cent to the contractor, HPC Builders.<\/p>\n
Mr Choo was leaving a funeral wake on the morning of March 14, 2023, when he tripped over a concrete hump at the void deck of Block 542 Hougang Avenue 8.<\/p>\n
The fall left Mr Choo with injuries to his face, hand and shoulder, and damage to his watch and phone, which had been flung out of his hands. His age was not stated in court documents.<\/p>\n
In filing a claim of negligence against HPC Builders, Mr Choo argued that the company was responsible for ensuring the works did not pose a danger to those at the void deck.<\/p>\n
HPC Builders was contracted by HDB for upgrading works in the area.<\/p>\n
As the residential units\u2019 toilets in the affected blocks could not be used during this period, HPC Builders was required to put up temporary toilets at the void deck, with a pipe connecting the toilets to a sewerage manhole.<\/p>\n
A concrete hump around 20cm in height was constructed over the manhole and painted yellow. It also connected to the pipe, which was 16cm high. <\/p>\n
Noting that the accident happened in broad daylight with no visible structure obstructing Mr Choo\u2019s view, Judge Sia said: \u201cThe claimant should have already been aware that there were temporary toilets in the area and that the block was having upgrading works.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe should therefore have been more alert to the possibility of hazards as he emerged from the passageway.\u201d<\/p>\n
She said he should bear the bulk of responsibility for the accident.<\/p>\n
The judge added that she did not find Mr Choo to be a particularly credible witness.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cMore importantly, the claimant\u2019s oral testimony of how the accident happened was equivocal,\u201d said the judge.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Said Judge Sia: \u201cWhen 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI find this evidence to be incredible and totally lacking in credibility, given the set-up in the area,\u201d the judge added.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe 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,\u201d said the judge.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cHowever, 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,\u201d said the judge.<\/p>\n
The trial on the remaining issues of liability and quantum will proceed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n