Thai girl who lost her legs at MRT in Singapore will SUE SMRT !

[halsey02]

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?

She was a teacher in a Secondary School in Hougang, supposedly was reading a book, did not pay attention & fell on to the track. Nowadays a lot are staring on their iphones or ipad or whatever, will we see people walking onto the tracks? There was some excuse that the CCTV was not working or recording or?? are they working today?, was she accidentally pushed by the crowds? the cameras can tell right?

 

[chonburifc]

She was a teacher in a Secondary School in Hougang, supposedly was reading a book, did not pay attention & fell on to the track. Nowadays a lot are staring on their iphones or ipad or whatever, will we see people walking onto the tracks? There was some excuse that the CCTV was not working or recording or?? are they working today?, was she accidentally pushed by the crowds? the cameras can tell right?

Yes, slowly recalling this incident and remember that reason given was CCTV was not working on that day due to maintenance or some other reasons.

Look I am not condemming SMRT. There are good things they have did and bad things they have did. If it's good thing, I will say they are good. One good thing is the toilet is free. (Not sure if still true). Otherwise, they should just admit their wrongs.

 

[Khun Ying Pojaman]

Re: They Only Listen To The Good Things For Themselves

And finally, what makes MRT finally build those barriers if they are so right in the first place? Are they admitting it's a need to have barrier now?

Bro, you're lumping two different subjects together. One is social policies, the other is specifically the law of tort. You're using one to answer the other. The poor girl's case is solely a matter for the law of tort and it's quite separate and distinct from individuals' perceptions of good social policies.

 

[cheekenpie]

Re: They Only Listen To The Good Things For Themselves

Thai girl has money from donations and the lawyers are milking her for it, win or lose, she still has to pay her lawyers. She will lose, sinkies have no sympathy for FT unless they go back in a body bag.

Those dumb mrt barriers are making my train rides more exp. If senior citizens can understand stand behind the fucking yellow line, why can't these young and middle aged who fall to their deaths and limbs mutilated on tracks. If you are dumb or suicidal don't take train, take bus or cycle lah.

 

[kingrant]

Of all the countries I have seen and visited and lived which have metros, undergrd tubes, trains, Singapore is the only country I come across that had to erect costly barriers to prevent a dumb riding population from falling in wilfully or accidentally. Sure makes us Singaporeans look like stupid cretins who cannot see danger and who need a nanny govt to safe guard us. Now we have Thais who are equally stupid to have fallen in but not so stupid to exploit Singaporeans who wear their hearts on their sleeves.

Do you sue knife-makers and sellers if you cut yrself? Do you erect barriers on expressways, roads, and highways to protect pedestrians from getting on them? Do you erect barriers on beaches to prevent stupid people from drowning themselves?

Anybody who knows the Thai family better advise her to save her money as she can never win.

 

[middaydog]

Anybody who knows the Thai family better advise her to save her money as she can never win.

The embassy here already did that

 

[Unrepented]

So hdb and all high rises how

There are many more suicides from jumping from high rise than jumping on to the MRT tracks.

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.

 

[Khun Ying Pojaman]

Anybody who knows the Thai family better advise her to save her money as she can never win.

In most of such cases, the plaintiff does not have the will to go all the way. The chips that the plaintiff now holds is "bad publicity" that an open court fight will generate against SMRT, or on a greater scale, Singapore.

 

[chonburifc]

In most of such cases, the plaintiff does not have the will to go all the way. The chips that the plaintiff now holds is "bad publicity" that an open court fight will generate against SMRT, or on a greater scale, Singapore.

Sawatsdee KYP,
Ok, took me a while to read up on this case. And here's my 2cents:

Plantiff claimed "SMRT did not have adequate safety measures in place"

SMRT refuted claim "The SMRT refuted the claims in its defence papers, listing safety measures that include an acceptable distance between the edge of the platform and the safety yellow line, safety announcements which are broadcast before a train arrives, as well as clearly displayed warning signs at the MRT station to warn passengers against stepping beyond the yellow safety line until the train stops.

The SMRT also argues that the absence of a barrier is not a danger or trap to minors and visitors as it had put in place these safety measures."

1. The word "adequate" - Did SMRT did enough after previous incidents? According to SMRT, yes, they listed a few safety measures in place. Unfortunately, these safety measures were unable to prevent an accident or suicides.

2. Contract - SMRT is a profit makng transport service provider. When a commuter takes a MRT, he actually enter into a contract with SMRT. The commuter pays the fares and SMRT transports commuter from point A to point B. This is the deal, the commuter pays SMRT and SMRT delivers. Isn't it the responsibilities of the transport provider to ensure safety? No different from any transport service providers like airline/trains/buses.

This is different from HDB/Reservoir/Overhead bridges. No payment was made and no service was offered.

 

[Khun Ying Pojaman]

Sawatsdee KYP,
Ok, took me a while to read up on this case. And here's my 2cents:

 

[mollusk]

she is lucky that she lost her leg in singapore..if it were in china....good luck to her..

 

[kingrant]

So if you have an accident running across an expressway or busy road, you can sue LTA and the govt because they and you have entered into a contract too, because you pay taxes and there is no other way to move around in Singapore except on roads built by this govt?

LOL.

2. Contract - SMRT is a profit makng transport service provider. When a commuter takes a MRT, he actually enter into a contract with SMRT. The commuter pays the fares and SMRT transports commuter from point A to point B. This is the deal, the commuter pays SMRT and SMRT delivers. Isn't it the responsibilities of the transport provider to ensure safety? No different from any transport service providers like airline/trains/buses.

This is different from HDB/Reservoir/Overhead bridges. No payment was made and no service was offered.

 

[chonburifc]

Tax is a duty not a contract.

 

[Khun Ying Pojaman]

2. Contract - SMRT is a profit makng transport service provider. When a commuter takes a MRT, he actually enter into a contract with SMRT. The commuter pays the fares and SMRT transports commuter from point A to point B. This is the deal, the commuter pays SMRT and SMRT delivers. Isn't it the responsibilities of the transport provider to ensure safety? No different from any transport service providers like airline/trains/buses.

The plaintiff is suing SMRT for negligence. The term "negligence" comes under purview of the Law of Tort, not the Law of Contract.

 

[chonburifc]

The plaintiff is suing SMRT for negligence. The term "negligence" comes under purview of the Law of Tort, not the Law of Contract.

Reading Law of Negligence now. :*: discuss later.

 

[chonburifc]

Read law of negligence. There is also a burden on SMRT to proof the negligence of the plaintiff in order to proof their non-negligence. True, chances are not so promising for the plaintiff as there are no precedence in such cases. Anyway, I hope the plaintiff lawyer can put up a good case to fight SMRT. SMRT, on the other hand, should start listening to feedbacks and position itself as a responsible public transport provider and not a hungry money making business entity.

 

[Khun Ying Pojaman]

Read law of negligence. There is also a burden on SMRT to proof the negligence of the plaintiff in order to proof their non-negligence.

No, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that SMRT is negligent. The person who alleges negligence must prove his case, not the other way round. SMRT may elicit evidence to prove that the plaintiff was negligent at some point in time leading to the occurrence of the accident. That is termed "contributory negligence" and it's a defence against a claim of negligence. It's not accurate to speak of it as a "burden of proof" since, if SMRT chooses not to raise contributory negligence as a defence, it need not have to prove negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

 

[chonburifc]

No, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that SMRT is negligent. The person who alleges negligence must prove his case, not the other way round. SMRT may elicit evidence to prove that the plaintiff was negligent at some point in time leading to the occurrence of the accident. That is termed "contributory negligence" and it's a defence against a claim of negligence. It's not accurate to speak of it as a "burden of proof" since, if SMRT chooses not to raise contributory negligence as a defence, it need not have to prove negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

Yes, read about contributory negligence. I thought the statement from SMRT is suggesting the plaintiff is negligent?

OK, this is how it goes, Plaintiff sues SMRT for negligence. SMRT rebutted the claims and indicate plaintiff is negligent. So now, plaintiff have to proof SMRT is negligent and SMRT have to proof plaintiff is negligent on her own.
Is the above correct?
Sorry, just trying to understand some laws.

 

[Khun Ying Pojaman]

Yes, read about contributory negligence. I thought the statement from SMRT is suggesting the plaintiff is negligent?

OK, this is how it goes, Plaintiff sues SMRT for negligence. SMRT rebutted the claims and indicate plaintiff is negligent. So now, plaintiff have to proof SMRT is negligent and SMRT have to proof plaintiff is negligent on her own.
Is the above correct?
Sorry, just trying to understand some laws.

It all depends on what is being pleaded in the Statement of Claims and Defence.

What appears in a press statement may not have been pleaded in the Statement of Claims or Defence.

Most likely Contributory Negligence was pleaded in the "alternative" by SMRT, that if SMRT was found to be negligent, then it would insist that the plaintiff was partly to blame. If successful, it would go towards reducing the amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff.

 

[singveld]

I think the family are being too greedy. Especially after a lot of singaporean donated good money towards her, the family giving it back to singapore lawyers, no one force them to sue smrt, it is their choice.