Zheng Yu Shan v Lian Beng Construction: Employer's Duty of Care & Workplace Safety
In Zheng Yu Shan v Lian Beng Construction (1988) Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding a back injury sustained by Zheng Yu Shan, a construction worker, while employed by Lian Beng Construction. Zheng Yu Shan was tasked with manually removing metal formworks from a wall. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding Lian Beng Construction liable for failing to provide a safe system of work. The court determined that the employer did not provide adequate instructions or sufficient workers for the physically demanding task. The court also found that Zheng Yu Shan was not contributorily negligent.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding a construction worker's back injury. The court addressed the employer's duty to provide a safe system of work and contributory negligence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zheng Yu Shan | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | Lin Shiu Yi, Belinda Kaur |
| Lian Beng Construction (1988) Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Eu Hai Meng Michael |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lin Shiu Yi | Hoh Law Corporation |
| Belinda Kaur | Hoh Law Corporation |
| Eu Hai Meng Michael | United Legal Alliance LLC |
4. Facts
- Appellant was a construction worker employed by the Respondent.
- Appellant and a co-worker were tasked to manually remove metal formworks from a wall.
- A crane could not be used due to the worksite's proximity to a school.
- The foreman did not give specific instructions on how to dismantle the metal formworks.
- Appellant stood with one leg on the scaffold and the other leg at the gap in the wall.
- Appellant felt a sharp pain in his back while lifting the 30th piece of metal formwork.
- The metal formworks weighed between 30kg and 35kg.
5. Formal Citations
- Zheng Yu Shan v Lian Beng Construction (1988) Pte Ltd, DA 2/2008, [2009] SGHC 6
- Zheng Yu Shan v Lian Beng Construction (1988) Pte Ltd, , [2008] SGDC 67
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant sustained a back injury while removing metal formworks. | |
| District Court held the appellant primarily responsible for a back injury. | |
| Proceedings were initiated by the Appellant after he sustained a serious back injury. | |
| High Court allowed the appeal and gave judgment in favour of the Appellant. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Duty to Provide Safe System of Work
- Outcome: The court held that the employer breached its duty to provide a safe system of work by failing to give precise instructions and provide more workers.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to give precise instructions
- Failure to provide more workers for physically demanding work
- Related Cases:
- [2004] 1 SLR 628
- [1999] 4 SLR 579
- [1992] 3 All ER 211
- [1953] AC 180
- [1953] 2 All ER 391
- [2000] 2 SLR 457
- [2001] 3 SLR 106
- Contributory Negligence
- Outcome: The court held that the employee was not contributorily negligent for his injuries.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1999] 4 SLR 579
- Judicial Notice
- Outcome: The court held that the trial judge erred in taking judicial notice of the fact that standing with both legs on scaffold less likely to cause injury compared to standing with one leg on scaffold and one leg on gap in wall.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Pain and suffering
- Loss of earnings
- Medical expenses
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Breach of Statutory Duty
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Law
- Personal Injury
- Workplace Safety
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zheng Yu Shan v Lian Beng Construction (1988) Pte Ltd | District Court | Yes | [2008] SGDC 67 | Singapore | The District Court's decision which held the appellant primarily responsible for a back injury which he sustained while at work. |
| Cheong Ghim Fah v Murugian s/o Ramasamy | N/A | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR 628 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that safety considerations should take precedence over convenience. |
| Parno v SC Marine Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 579 | Singapore | Cited for the employer's duty to provide a competent staff, adequate material, and a proper system and effective supervision. |
| Pape v Cumbria County Council | N/A | Yes | [1992] 3 All ER 211 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the employer must devise a suitable system and instruct his men in what they must do. |
| General Cleaning Contractors Ltd v Christmas | N/A | Yes | [1953] AC 180 | N/A | Cited for the principle that in devising a safe system, the employer should be aware that workmen are often careless for their own safety, and his system must, as far as possible, reduce the effects of an employee’s own carelessness. |
| Woods v Durable Suites Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1953] 2 All ER 391 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the employer is not obliged to stand over workmen of age and experience at every moment they are working to see that they do what they are supposed to do. |
| Gaughan v Straits Instrumentation Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 457 | Singapore | Cited regarding the employer's duty to provide a safe system of work and the employee's responsibility for isolated tasks. |
| Chua Ah Beng v C & P Holdings Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 106 | Singapore | Cited regarding the employer's duty to provide instructions on every aspect of his employee’s work. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR 239 | Singapore | Cited regarding the application of common law to fill gaps in the Evidence Act. |
| Plaza Singapura (Pte) Ltd v Cosdel (S) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1990] SLR 93 | Singapore | Cited regarding the adoption of a cautious stance towards the application of the doctrine of judicial notice. |
| Plaza Singapore (Pte) Ltd v Shizuoka Yajimaya (Singapore) Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1988] SLR 273 | Singapore | Cited regarding the adoption of a cautious stance towards the application of the doctrine of judicial notice. |
| Lazard Brothers and Company v Midland Bank, Limited | N/A | Yes | [1933] AC 289 | N/A | Cited regarding the fact that even if judicial notice has been taken of a particular fact in a previous case, it does not automatically mean that judicial notice ought similarly to be taken of that same fact in a later case. |
| Tay Joo Sing v Ku Yu Sang | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 719 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the Court of Appeal took judicial notice of the fact that in 1987 Singapore was getting out of a recession and by 1989 the country’s economy had recovered to a considerable extent and prices of landed properties had gone up. |
| Caterpillar Far East Ltd v CEL Tractors Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 702 | Singapore | Cited as an example where this court took judicial notice of the fact that for over a century Singapore had thrived as a free port and busy trading centre for all kinds of goods within the region. |
| Asia Hotel Investments Ltd v Starwood Asia Pacific Management Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2007] SGHC 50 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the trial judge took judicial notice of the fact that the Thai baht has appreciated by about 20% between 15 February 2002 (ie, the date of breach) and [2007]. |
| Shell Eastern Petroleum (Pte) Ltd v Chuan Hong Auto (Pte) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 281 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the High Court took judicial notice that there were a few other oil companies operating service stations and offering some measure of competition to the plaintiff. |
| R v Find | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [2001] 1 SCR 863 | Canada | Cited regarding the threshold for judicial notice. |
| China Construction (South Pacific) Development Co Pte Ltd v Shao Hai | N/A | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR 479 | Singapore | Cited as an example where an employee can be found to be contributorily negligent when his employer has been remiss in its duty to provide a safe system of work. |
| Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1953] AC 663 | N/A | Cited regarding the appellate court's guidance in Parno. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Metal formworks
- Scaffold
- Straddling position
- Safe system of work
- Contributory negligence
- Judicial notice
- Dismantling
- Construction worker
- Back injury
15.2 Keywords
- Construction accident
- Workplace injury
- Employer's liability
- Negligence
- Singapore
- High Court
- Construction Law
- Employment Law
- Duty of care
- Safe system of work
16. Subjects
- Employment Law
- Construction Law
- Tort Law
- Workplace Safety
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Tort
- Negligence