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.