Pardon me, who do you sue for 4mil after you have died when the train run over you?, it will be classified as unnatural death, & your descendants maybe sued for damages.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Thai girl who lost her legs at MRT in Singapore will SUE SMRT !
- Thread starter Khun Ying Pojaman
- Start date
Pardon me, who do you sue for 4mil after you have died when the train run over you?, it will be classified as unnatural death, & your descendants maybe sued for damages.
I think many conveniently lumped Nong Than's case with the string of cases of suicides at MRT and reservoirs.
Nong Than did not attempt to commit suicide.
Nong Than did not attempt to commit suicide.
I had mentioned this before & will again, AMK MRT Station was not designed for such am inceased in passenger load. When it was planned & built in the 1980's, I am sure the current passenger load exceeded the future projection. It is not difficult to notice the human traffic there at rush hours or any where along the NS line from AMK to JE Interchange, & from AMK to Bishan now or beyond to Raffles Place or T Pagar.
AMK station is really packed at rush hours, only recently the barriers are erected, but not all are functioning. The Transport minister should take the train ride there during the rush hours to see for himself the strain on the Station itself & the supporting bus services at the bus stops. Not, just 'wayang' by "new broom sweeps clean'...oh, I forgot, he is busy, parliament is in session.
I welcome any Thai attempt to attack, shame and disgrace any Sinkapore govt establishments.. All the way , for the Thais... Yeah!!!!
I hope you not just sue $4 million, try $40 million.. it will be great!!!!
Last edited:
Regarding the barrier thing, the issue of safety has been brought up countless times since the day MRT started operation. Remember one minister even made some real stupid comments. Later, they paint some yellow lines. And later, they put some announcement in 4 languages to remind passengers to stand behind yellow lines. The minister and MRT management simply refused to listen until as more deaths happened.
Not only the Thai girl should sue MRT, all those whose relatives committed suicides on the track should come forward and sue the MRT!
But then, who suffers in the end? The citizens, because this MRT will only increase prices to fund the lawsuits.
This is an typcial example of high paying ministers and glc management sitting high up in the castle, collecting their millions and refusing to listen.
I'm afraid the suicide cases have no grounds to sue SMRT.
Such is the inelasticity of demand. If Temasek wanna charge a million dollars for the oxygen in Singapore, what can Sinkies do other than pay? Checks and balances, freedom of expression - who needs them?
Last edited:
Easy money as in after the incident and not before, dont think she would want to do it this way to get that money right? Logical??
On grounds of negligence maybe possible. Despite the initial suicides, MRT did not build the barriers as suggested by many people. After that, more copycat suicides.
Do you remember a few years back a sinkie teacher that just got married also fall down onto the ang mo kio tracks and died? Can her family sue too? How about that case in Yishun back in 1996 where the station while cleaning at the platform felt giddy and fell onto the track and got her foot sheared off by the train can she sue too?
He can sue, but whether he will win is a different matter altogether.
Think possible if they get a good lawyer to build a case. The point is MRT did not do enough to ensure safety of commuters despite previous accidents and suicides. They could have just build the barriers but some stupid minister made some comments and everything brush aside. Can someone help dig this out?
But then, FT versus SG court, 50-50 percent chance. SG peasants versus SG courts, 0.5 - 99.5 percent chance.
More like a lawyer with big balls. Good lawyers are normally kiasu, and wouldn't dare to take on the government.
Everybody has the right to sue. That is not the issue.
Open platforms are found all over the world. Even the London tube has many stations which are open platforms. No different to an open road. Sure a barricaded platform would be ideal but it would push cost very high. Its the citizens that will wear the brunt of the costs.
Contrary to some who are seemed to belief anything, such cases do exist. They do not appear in the press because the parties want to keep it quiet. In the most cases private settlement are reached before court. A good example would be someone slipping on the wet floor of an MRT station after cleaning and breaking his pelvis and the yellow warning sign was not in place.
Lawyers will take on any case except when are going to be used as part of the wayang drama as per CTL case. It usually the small and medium size firms that will take on the case of such uncertainty because of the fees involved. This case is simple by nature. Some lawyers will not take on the case, because they think the family is throwing away good money. There are different motives involved. Where a frivolous law suit is lodged, the Law Society can throw charges at the lawyer for misleading the client.
Frankly they are using the money donated to try their luck. I am sure they are not going to win.
Open platforms are found all over the world. Even the London tube has many stations which are open platforms. No different to an open road. Sure a barricaded platform would be ideal but it would push cost very high. Its the citizens that will wear the brunt of the costs.
Contrary to some who are seemed to belief anything, such cases do exist. They do not appear in the press because the parties want to keep it quiet. In the most cases private settlement are reached before court. A good example would be someone slipping on the wet floor of an MRT station after cleaning and breaking his pelvis and the yellow warning sign was not in place.
Lawyers will take on any case except when are going to be used as part of the wayang drama as per CTL case. It usually the small and medium size firms that will take on the case of such uncertainty because of the fees involved. This case is simple by nature. Some lawyers will not take on the case, because they think the family is throwing away good money. There are different motives involved. Where a frivolous law suit is lodged, the Law Society can throw charges at the lawyer for misleading the client.
Frankly they are using the money donated to try their luck. I am sure they are not going to win.
Last edited:
It's impossible in a suicide case. It's intentional on the part of the victim, not negligence on the part of SMRT. In a suicide case, the SMRT does not owe a duty of care to a suicide victim (I'm not even sure if he is a victim or perpetrator).
Building barricades concerns the standard of care (after all, open platforms are acceptable in most countries), but since in a suicide there is no duty of care on the part of the owner (of the facilities) to begin with, the matter stops right there.
Last edited:
