Heng Lee Suan v YTC Hotels: Negligence Claim for Slip and Fall at Paramount Hotel Entrance

In 2008, Heng Lee Suan sued YTC Hotels Ltd, trading as Paramount Hotel, in the High Court of Singapore, alleging negligence after she slipped and fell at the hotel's entrance on 3 September 2005. Heng Lee Suan claimed the hotel's inadequate lighting and the dark color of the steps caused her fall. Justice Lai Siu Chiu dismissed the claim, finding that the fall was due to Heng Lee Suan's own negligence and that the hotel's entrance was adequately lit.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Tort

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Heng Lee Suan sued YTC Hotels for negligence after slipping and falling at the Paramount Hotel entrance. The court dismissed the claim, finding the fall was due to her own negligence.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Heng Lee SuanPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLost
YTC Hotels Ltd (trading as Paramount Hotel)DefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Cheah Kok LimSng & Co
Chong Shiao HanSng & Co
Yong Boon OnRajah & Tann LLP
Tan Lee ChengRajah & Tann LLP

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff slipped and fell at the front entrance steps of the Paramount Hotel.
  2. The plaintiff twisted her right ankle as a result of the fall.
  3. The plaintiff was attending a choir retreat at the hotel.
  4. The plaintiff was walking to a nearby petrol kiosk to buy bread.
  5. The plaintiff claimed the steps were dimly lit.
  6. The hotel argued the plaintiff was not paying attention.
  7. The steps were made of dark granite with grooves at the edge.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Heng Lee Suan v YTC Hotels Ltd (trading as Paramount Hotel), Suit 254/2007, [2008] SGHC 111

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff checked into the Hotel
Plaintiff slipped and fell at the Hotel entrance
Plaintiff underwent emergency operation
Lindis Szto Cheng Lian wrote to the Hotel's general manager
Screws were removed from plaintiff's right ankle
Plaintiff's solicitors sent letter of demand
Plaintiff commenced suit
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant did not breach its duty of care and that the plaintiff's fall was due to her own negligence.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Breach of duty of care
      • Causation
      • Contributory negligence
    • Related Cases:
      • [1995] 2 SLR 716
  2. Occupiers' Liability
    • Outcome: The court determined that the hotel, as the occupier, did not expose the plaintiff to unusual danger.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1995] 2 SLR 716

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury
  • Hotel and Hospitality Law

11. Industries

  • Hospitality

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Industrial Commercial Bank v Tan Swa EngAppellate CourtYes[1995] 2 SLR 716SingaporeCited to define the duty owed by an occupier to an invitee.
Browne v DunnN/AYes(1893) 6 R 67N/ACited for the principle that if evidence is not challenged in cross-examination, the court may take it that the evidence is accepted.
Gillmore v London County CouncilHigh CourtNo[1938] 4 All ER 331EnglandCited to contend that the fact that there were no other accidents did not mean that the Hotel’s lighting was adequate.
Protheroe v The Railway ExecutiveN/ANo[1951] 1 KB 376N/ACited to contend that the fact that there were no other accidents did not mean that the Hotel’s lighting was adequate.
Maclenan v SegarN/ANo[1917] 2 KB 325N/ACited regarding the standard of care owed to invitees under a contract.
Bell v Travco Hotels LtdCourt of AppealNo[1953] 1 All ER 638N/ACited regarding the standard of care owed to invitees under a contract.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 22A of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Slip and fall
  • Negligence
  • Occupiers' liability
  • Hotel entrance
  • Duty of care
  • Lighting
  • Steps
  • Invitees

15.2 Keywords

  • Slip and fall
  • Hotel
  • Negligence
  • Personal injury
  • Singapore
  • Occupiers liability

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Premises Liability90
Occupiers' Liability85
Personal Injury80
Breach of Contract75
Torts75
Negligence70
Contract Law60

16. Subjects

  • Tort Law
  • Contract Law
  • Personal Injury Law