BNJ v SMRT Trains: Negligence, Occupier's Liability, and Breach of Duty in MRT Accident

In 2013, the High Court of Singapore heard the case of BNJ, a minor, suing by her lawful father and litigation representative, B, against SMRT Trains Ltd and the Land Transport Authority of Singapore (LTA) for injuries sustained when she was struck by a train at Ang Mo Kio MRT station on April 3, 2011. BNJ claimed negligence, breach of duty as occupiers, breach of statutory duty, and breach of an implied contract term. Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding that AMK Station was reasonably safe at the time of the incident and that the defendants were not negligent.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's action dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

A 14-year-old, BNJ, sued SMRT Trains and LTA for negligence after being struck by a train at Ang Mo Kio MRT station. The court dismissed the claim.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
BNJPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLost
SMRT Trains LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWon
Land Transport Authority of SingaporeDefendantStatutory BoardJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Vinodh CoomaraswamyJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Subbiah PillaiCosmas LLP
Cosmas Stephen GomezCosmas LLP
Anparasan s/o KamachiKhattarWong LLP
Tan Wei MingKhattarWong LLP
Grace TanKhattarWong LLP

4. Facts

  1. On April 3, 2011, the plaintiff fell onto the tracks at Ang Mo Kio MRT station.
  2. The plaintiff was struck by an oncoming train, resulting in the amputation of both legs below the knee.
  3. The plaintiff claimed the defendants were negligent in failing to prevent her fall.
  4. The plaintiff was standing behind the yellow line when she fell.
  5. The plaintiff suffered a sudden loss of consciousness before falling.
  6. The Ang Mo Kio MRT station did not have platform screen doors at the time of the accident.
  7. The Land Transport Authority decided in 2008 to retrofit half-height platform screen doors at aboveground MRT stations.

5. Formal Citations

  1. BNJ (suing by her lawful father and litigationrepresentative, B)vSMRT Trains Ltd and another, Suit No 432 of 2011, [2013] SGHC 286

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff arrived in Singapore to study English.
Plaintiff was injured by a train at Ang Mo Kio MRT station.
Action commenced by the plaintiff.
Plaintiff added the LTA as a second defendant.
Trial began.
Counsel closing submissions.
Further submissions.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendants were not negligent as the Ang Mo Kio MRT station was reasonably safe.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2013] 3 SLR 284
      • [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100
  2. Occupier's Liability
    • Outcome: The court held that occupier's liability is subsumed under general negligence.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2013] 3 SLR 284
  3. Breach of Statutory Duty
    • Outcome: The court found that the Building Control Regulations did not apply to the MRT network.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that while there was an implied term that the station would be reasonably safe, there was no breach as the station was reasonably safe.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • (1889) 14 PD 64
  5. Res Ipsa Loquitur
    • Outcome: The court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply as the circumstances of the accident were clear.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Breach of Duty as Occupiers
  • Breach of Statutory Duty
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury
  • Transportation Law

11. Industries

  • Transportation

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Private) Limited & OthersCourt of AppealYes[2013] 3 SLR 284SingaporeCited for the principle that occupiers' liability is subsumed under the general tort of negligence.
Industrial Commercial Bank v Tan Swa Eng and others and another appealN/AYes[1995] 2 SLR(R) 385SingaporeCited to define the duty owed to an invitee under the old law of occupier's liability.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology AgencyN/AYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 100SingaporeCited for the modern test to determine whether a duty of care arises in Singapore law.
Caparo Industries Plc v DickmanN/AYes[1989] QB 653England and WalesCited to elaborate on the concept of proximity.
Sutherland Shire Council v HeymanAustralian High CourtYes(1985) 60 ALR 1AustraliaCited to elaborate on the concept of proximity.
Anns v Merton London Borough CouncilN/AYes[1978] 1 AC 728England and WalesCited regarding policy considerations in determining duty of care.
Barrett v Enfield London Borough CouncilN/AYes[2001] 2 AC 550England and WalesCited regarding policy considerations in determining duty of care.
Simkin and ors v North Western Railway CompanyN/AYes(1888) 21 QBD 453England and WalesCited for the duty owed by railway companies to passengers.
Hare v British Transport CommissionN/AYes[1956] 1 WLR 250England and WalesCited for the duty owed to persons allowed on the platform.
Public Transport Commission of New South Wales v PerryAustralian High CourtYes(1977) 14 ALR 273AustraliaCited for the duty of care owed by transport commissions to passengers.
The MoorcockEnglish Court of AppealYes(1889) 14 PD 64England and WalesCited for the business efficacy test for implying terms in a contract.
Forefront Medical Technology (Pte) Ltd v Modern-Pak Pte LtdN/AYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 927SingaporeCited as authority for the business efficacy and officious bystander tests.
Foo Jong Peng and others v Phua Kiah Mai and anotherN/AYes[2012] 4 SLR 1267SingaporeCited as authority for the business efficacy and officious bystander tests.
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Batshita International (Pte) LtdN/AYes[1996] 2 SLR(R) 292SingaporeCited as authority for the business efficacy and officious bystander tests.
Chai Chung Ching Chester v Diversey (Far East) Pte LtdN/AYes[1991] 1 SLR(R) 757SingaporeCited as authority for the business efficacy and officious bystander tests.
Blyth v Birmingham WaterworksN/AYes[1856] 11 Ex 781England and WalesCited for the definition of negligence.
Walker v Northumberland County CouncilN/AYes[1995] ICR 702England and WalesCited for the standard of care required once a duty of care has been established.
Glasgow Corp v MuirN/AYes[1943] AC 448ScotlandCited for the principle that those who engage in inherently dangerous operations must take precautions.
Bolton v StoneN/AYes[1951] 1 AC 850England and WalesCited for the principle that an ordinarily careful man does not take precautions against every foreseeable risk.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty and AnotherN/AYes[1967] AC 617England and WalesCited for the balancing exercise between the posited precautions and the cost of those precautions.
B (A Child) v Camden LBCN/AYes[2001] PIQR P9England and WalesCited for the principle of balancing the cost of eliminating a risk against the likelihood of the risk occurring.
Ryan v London Borough of CamdenN/AYes(1982) 8 HLR 72England and WalesCited in relation to the public tolerance of risk.
State Rail Authority v MayleN/AYes[1999] NSWCA 388AustraliaCited for the principle that the risk must be more than infinitesimal to warrant precautions.
Cekan v HainesN/AYes(1990) 21 NSWLR 296AustraliaCited for the countervailing considerations of cost and marginal utility when considering the extent of the duty of a public authority.
Chan Chung Kuen and MTR Corporation LtdN/AYesDCPI 764/2009Hong KongCited for the principle that commonly-adopted safety measures are meaningful and effective.
Stracstone v London Transport BoardN/AYesThe Times, 21 January 1966England and WalesCited for the principle that commonly-adopted safety measures are meaningful and effective.
Thompson v Smiths Shiprepairers (North Shields) LtdN/AYes[1984] QB 405England and WalesCited for the approach to assessing when the tipping point for the uptake of certain new safety measures is reached.
Daborn v Bath Tramways Motor Co LtdN/AYes[1946] 2 All ER 333England and WalesCited for the principle that the importance of the end to be served may be a relevant circumstance in determining negligence.
Hamzah D 494 & Ors v Wan Hanafi bin Wan AliN/AYes[1975] 1 MLJ 203MalaysiaCited for the principle that a balance has to be struck between the purpose of providing transport and the risk of injury.
Scott v The London and St Katherine Docks CompanyN/AYes(1865) 3 H & C 596England and WalesCited for the conditions for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Teng Ah Kow & Anor v Ho Sek Chiu & OrsN/AYes[1993] 3 SLR(R) 43SingaporeCited for the principle that res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Building Control Act (Cap 29, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore
Building Control Act 1973 (Act 59 of 1973)Singapore
Mass Rapid Transit Corporation Act 1983Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Negligence
  • Occupier's Liability
  • Breach of Statutory Duty
  • Breach of Contract
  • Platform Screen Doors
  • Yellow Line
  • Duty of Care
  • Res Ipsa Loquitur
  • ALARP Principle
  • MRT
  • AMK Station
  • One-Under Incidents

15.2 Keywords

  • Negligence
  • MRT
  • Platform Screen Doors
  • Singapore
  • Personal Injury

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Torts90
Personal Injury80
Breach of Duty80
Occupiers' Liability70
Breach of Contract60
Contract Law50
Res ipsa loquitur40
Breach of Statutory Duty30
Administrative Law30

16. Subjects

  • Tort Law
  • Transportation Law
  • Civil Litigation