Man Mohan Singh v Zurich Insurance: Negligence, Damages & Loss of Dependency

In Man Mohan Singh s/o Jothirambal Singh and Another v Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard appeals concerning a tragic accident where the appellants, Man Mohan Singh and Jasbir Kaur, lost their two sons due to the negligence of Dilveer Singh Gill. The appellants sued Zurich Insurance and Dilveer Singh Gill for bereavement, funeral expenses, loss of dependency, post-traumatic shock and depression, and the cost of fertility treatment. The court allowed the appeal in part, increasing the awards for loss of dependency, but dismissed the claims for post-traumatic shock, depression, and fertility treatment costs. The cross-appeal by Zurich Insurance was dismissed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part regarding loss of dependency; dismissed regarding post-traumatic shock, depression, and fertility treatment costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal concerning a fatal accident and claims for loss of dependency, post-traumatic stress, and fertility treatment costs. The court addressed duty of care and damages.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Man Mohan Singh s/o Jothirambal SinghAppellantIndividualAppeal allowed in part, Claims dismissedPartial, DismissedRenuka Chettiar, Ganesh S Ramanathan, Andy Chiok
Jasbir KaurAppellantIndividualAppeal allowed in part, Claims dismissedPartial, DismissedRenuka Chettiar, Ganesh S Ramanathan, Andy Chiok
Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd (now known as QBE Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd)RespondentCorporationCross-appeal dismissedDismissedRamasamy K Chettiar, Christopher Fernandez
Dilveer Singh Gill s/o Shokdarchan SinghRespondentIndividualJudgment againstLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Sek KeongChief JusticeNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Renuka ChettiarKaruppan Chettiar & Partners
Ganesh S RamanathanKaruppan Chettiar & Partners
Andy ChiokKaruppan Chettiar & Partners
Ramasamy K ChettiarAcies Law Corporation
Christopher FernandezAcies Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. On December 2, 2002, Gurjiv Singh and Pardip Singh died in a car accident.
  2. The accident was caused by the negligence of Dilveer Singh Gill.
  3. Man Mohan Singh and Jasbir Kaur are the parents of the deceased.
  4. The parents sued for bereavement, funeral expenses, loss of dependency, post-traumatic shock, and fertility treatment costs.
  5. The insurer of the car, Zurich Insurance, was joined as a co-defendant.
  6. The parents sought fertility treatment after the accident to conceive another child.
  7. The fertility treatment was ultimately unsuccessful.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Man Mohan Singh s/o Jothirambal Singh and Another v Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd (now known as QBE Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd) and Another and Another Appeal, CA 85/2007, 86/2007, [2008] SGCA 24

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Accident occurred resulting in the death of Gurjiv Singh and Pardip Singh.
Appellants attended grief therapy at Changi General Hospital.
Interlocutory judgment in default of appearance was entered against the second respondent.
Medical report by Dr. Angelina Chan.
Assessment of damages before the Assistant Registrar.
Appellants sued the second respondent.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found the second respondent negligent but disallowed claims for post-traumatic shock, depression, and fertility treatment costs due to lack of duty of care and remoteness.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Duty of care
      • Causation
      • Remoteness of damage
  2. Damages
    • Outcome: The court increased the awards for loss of dependency but disallowed claims for post-traumatic shock, depression, and fertility treatment costs.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Loss of dependency
      • Post-traumatic shock and depression
      • Cost of fertility treatment
      • Bereavement
  3. Duty of Care
    • Outcome: The court held that the negligent driver did not owe a duty of care to the victims' parents to avoid causing them to lose all their children or to avoid causing them to undergo fertility treatment.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Psychiatric illness
      • Foreseeability
      • Proximity
      • Policy concerns

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Bereavement
  3. Funeral Expenses
  4. Loss of Dependency
  5. Damages for Post-Traumatic Shock and Depression
  6. Cost of Fertility Treatment

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury
  • Insurance Law

11. Industries

  • Insurance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Man Mohan Singh s/o Jothirambal Singh v Dilveer Singh Gill s/o Shokdarchan SinghHigh CourtYes[2007] SGHC 73SingaporeRefers to the Assistant Registrar's decision in the case.
Man Mohan Singh s/o Jothirambal Singh v Dilveer Singh Gill s/o Shokdarchan SinghHigh CourtYes[2007] 4 SLR 843SingaporeRefers to the High Court Judge's decision on appeal.
Lai Wee Lian v Singapore Bus Service (1978) LtdJudicial Committee of the Privy CouncilYes[1984] 1 MLJ 325SingaporeCited for the principle that the proper way to decide whether a global award is too low or too high is by assessing the separate items and arriving at a fair total.
Ho Yeow Kim v Lim Hai KuenHigh CourtYes[1999] 2 SLR 246SingaporeCompared to the present case regarding the assessment of prospective earnings of a deceased son.
Tan Ngo Hwa v Siew Mun PhuiHigh CourtYes[1998] SGHC 376SingaporeCited regarding the computation of prospective earnings of a victim who had not yet taken her General Certificate of Education examinations.
Tan Harry v Teo Chee Yeow AloysiusHigh CourtYes[2004] 1 SLR 513SingaporeCited in relation to the apportionment rate of prospective earnings to parents.
Ng Siew Choo v Tan Kian ChoonHigh CourtYes[1990] SLR 331SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court should not reverse a trial judge on the question of damages unless the judge acted upon some wrong principle of law or the amount awarded was an entirely erroneous estimate.
Flint v LovellEnglish Court of AppealYes[1935] 1 KB 354England and WalesCited for the principle that an appellate court should not reverse a trial judge on the question of damages unless the judge acted upon some wrong principle of law or the amount awarded was an entirely erroneous estimate.
Ling Kee Ling v Leow Leng SiongHigh CourtYes[1995] 2 SLR 189SingaporeCited as an illustration of the conventional approach of applying a separate multiplier for each dependant.
Sim Hau Yan v Ong Sio BengHigh CourtYes[1996] SGHC 256SingaporeCited as an example of a case where the court set a multiplier for each of the deceased's parents.
Lee Kwan Kok v Wong Chan TongHigh CourtYes[2004] SGHC 211SingaporeCited for taking into account life expectancy when determining the appropriate multiplier.
Ngiam Kong Seng v Lim Chiew HockCourt of AppealYes[2008] SGCA 23SingaporeRe-examined the applicable law in Singapore in respect of claims for damages for psychiatric illness or nervous shock.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology AgencyCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR 100SingaporeLaid down the two-stage test for determining whether a duty of care in tort exists.
McLoughlin v O'BrianHouse of LordsYes[1983] 1 AC 410United KingdomCited for the prerequisites that must be met before the question of whether a duty of care exists becomes relevant in claims for psychiatric harm.
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire PoliceHouse of LordsYes[1992] 1 AC 310United KingdomCited regarding the ordinary and inevitable incidents of life which must be sustained without compensation.
Vernon v Bosley (No 1)English Court of AppealYes[1997] 1 All ER 577England and WalesCited as a case where the plaintiff succeeded in his claim for damages for psychiatric harm, notwithstanding the fact that he had suffered pathological grief.
Tan Hun Hoe v Harte Denis MathewCourt of AppealYes[2001] 4 SLR 317SingaporeCited in support of the appellants' arguments regarding the claim for the cost of fertility treatment.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound)Privy CouncilYes[1961] AC 388United KingdomCited regarding the principle of remoteness of damage.
In re An Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy and Company, LimitedEnglish Court of AppealYes[1921] 3 KB 560England and WalesCited regarding the principle that the defendant was liable for all of the plaintiff's losses that were a direct consequence of his negligence.
Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming EricCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR 782SingaporeCited regarding the rule in relation to remoteness of damage.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) s 21(4)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Negligence
  • Loss of dependency
  • Post-traumatic shock
  • Fertility treatment
  • Duty of care
  • Multiplier
  • Multiplicand
  • Bereavement
  • Remoteness of damage
  • Psychiatric illness

15.2 Keywords

  • Negligence
  • Damages
  • Loss of dependency
  • Post-traumatic shock
  • Fertility treatment
  • Duty of care
  • Singapore
  • Appeal

16. Subjects

  • Tort Law
  • Negligence Law
  • Damages Assessment
  • Insurance Law

17. Areas of Law

  • Tort
  • Negligence
  • Damages
  • Civil Law