- Joined
- Mar 12, 2009
- Messages
- 13,160
- Points
- 0
Firm whose van injured cabbie 'not liable'
by Ong Dai Lin
05:55 AM Jan 29, 2011
SINGAPORE - If an employee drives a company vehicle outside of office hours
for personal use and gets into a car accident, should the employer
also be held liable for the offence?
The answer on Friday by High Court judge Kan Ting Chiu was a "no" -
reversing a decision made by the lower courts in September last year.
On October 24, 2006, Mr Chua Meng Hwee, a delivery driver for
Advance Industry Technology, was driving a company van along
Yuan Ching Road at around 3.19am when he crashed into a taxi.
Mr Chua died from his injuries in hospital. An autopsy report showed
his blood alcohol level - 306mg per 100ml of blood - was more than
three times the legal limit of 80mg.
The taxi driver, Mr Chiang Choong Loong, was hospitalised for more
than three weeks for head injuries and a shoulder fracture.
Mr Chiang, who is now unemployed, sued the estate of Mr Chua
and Advance Industry. Mr Chiang's lawyer Ching Kim Chuah had
argued that the company had allowed Mr Chua free use of the
van - "a potentially lethal machine", in the lawyer's words -
and was under a duty to ask whether its employee would handle the vehicle responsibly.
Last year, District Judge Loo Ngan Chor ruled that the estate
of Mr Chua and Advance Industry Technology should jointly
pay 100 per cent of the damages suffered by Mr Chiang.
On Friday, the company appealed against the decision.
Its lawyer Bhaskaran Sivasamy argued that, while the
employment has created an opportunity for the
commission of an offence, it does not mean liability
on the employer.
The lawyer said: "Otherwise employers'
liability for employees' tort will be limitless."
by Ong Dai Lin
05:55 AM Jan 29, 2011
SINGAPORE - If an employee drives a company vehicle outside of office hours
for personal use and gets into a car accident, should the employer
also be held liable for the offence?
The answer on Friday by High Court judge Kan Ting Chiu was a "no" -
reversing a decision made by the lower courts in September last year.
On October 24, 2006, Mr Chua Meng Hwee, a delivery driver for
Advance Industry Technology, was driving a company van along
Yuan Ching Road at around 3.19am when he crashed into a taxi.
Mr Chua died from his injuries in hospital. An autopsy report showed
his blood alcohol level - 306mg per 100ml of blood - was more than
three times the legal limit of 80mg.
The taxi driver, Mr Chiang Choong Loong, was hospitalised for more
than three weeks for head injuries and a shoulder fracture.
Mr Chiang, who is now unemployed, sued the estate of Mr Chua
and Advance Industry. Mr Chiang's lawyer Ching Kim Chuah had
argued that the company had allowed Mr Chua free use of the
van - "a potentially lethal machine", in the lawyer's words -
and was under a duty to ask whether its employee would handle the vehicle responsibly.
Last year, District Judge Loo Ngan Chor ruled that the estate
of Mr Chua and Advance Industry Technology should jointly
pay 100 per cent of the damages suffered by Mr Chiang.
On Friday, the company appealed against the decision.
Its lawyer Bhaskaran Sivasamy argued that, while the
employment has created an opportunity for the
commission of an offence, it does not mean liability
on the employer.
The lawyer said: "Otherwise employers'
liability for employees' tort will be limitless."
Last edited:
