Nagarajan Murugesan v Grand Rich Electrical: Negligence, Worksite Accident & Contributory Negligence

Nagarajan Murugesan, a construction labourer, appealed to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore against Grand Rich Electrical & Engineering Pte Ltd, Yuan Ji Enterprises Pte Ltd, and Eng Lee Engineering Pte Ltd, following an accident at a worksite on May 16, 2019. Murugesan sustained injuries when an excavator unexpectedly moved forward and collided with him. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, finding Grand Rich Electrical & Engineering Pte Ltd and Yuan Ji Enterprises Pte Ltd negligent, and holding Murugesan contributorily negligent.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Construction worker appeals after worksite accident. Court finds employer and main contractor negligent, worker contributorily negligent.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Nagarajan MurugesanAppellantIndividualAppeal Allowed in PartPartial
Grand Rich Electrical & Engineering Pte LtdRespondentCorporationJudgment against RespondentLost
Yuan Ji Enterprises Pte LtdRespondentCorporationJudgment against RespondentLost
Eng Lee Engineering Pte LtdRespondentCorporationJudgment against RespondentLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Dedar Singh GillJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Han Hean JuanHoh Law Corporation
Lu Zhao Bo YuHoh Law Corporation
Phua Cheng Sye CharlesPKWA Law Practice LLC
Tang Jin ShengWhiteFern LLC
Lin Weizhi JoshuaWhiteFern LLC

4. Facts

  1. Appellant was a construction labourer employed by Grand Rich Electrical & Engineering Pte Ltd.
  2. Yuan Ji Enterprises Pte Ltd was the main contractor and occupier of the worksite.
  3. Eng Lee Engineering Pte Ltd was the main contractor and occupier of an adjacent construction site.
  4. On May 16, 2019, the appellant was injured when an excavator moved forward and collided with him.
  5. The accident occurred because a truck was attempting to enter the adjacent construction site.
  6. The appellant was attempting to create more space for the truck to maneuver.
  7. The excavator operator moved the excavator forward on the instructions of a banksman from the adjacent construction site.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Nagarajan Murugesan v Grand Rich Electrical & Engineering Pte Ltd and others, District Court Appeal No 4 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 36

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant employed by Grand Rich Electrical & Engineering Pte Ltd
Accident occurred at worksite
Appellant filed DC/S 1040/2019 against the first respondent
Second respondent joined as defendant to Suit 1040
Third respondent joined as defendant to Suit 1040
Trial on liability held before the State Courts
Trial on liability held before the State Courts
Second respondent made an offer to settle with the appellant
Trial on liability held before the State Courts
Trial on liability held before the State Courts
Trial on liability held before the State Courts
Trial on liability held before the State Courts
Decision given by the learned District Judge
Appellant’s Case dated
1st and 2nd Respondents’ Case dated
3rd Respondent’s Case dated
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Duty of Care
    • Outcome: The court found that the first respondent breached its duty of care by failing to implement a horning system. The court also found that the second respondent breached its duty of care by failing to coordinate arrangements between the Worksite and the third respondent’s Worksite.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to implement adequate safety measures
      • Failure to provide proper training
      • Failure to exercise proper supervision
      • Failure to coordinate worksites
  2. Contributory Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found the appellant contributorily negligent to the extent of 10%.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to take reasonable care for own safety
      • Standing in blind spot of excavator
  3. Vicarious Liability
    • Outcome: The court found the first respondent vicariously liable for the Operator’s negligence in managing the excavator. The court found that the second respondent was not vicariously liable for the Operator’s negligence in managing the excavator.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for personal injuries

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury
  • Construction Accident Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chen Qiangshi v Hong Fei CDY Construction Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2014] SGHC 177SingaporeCited for the legal requirements necessary to establish an action in the tort of negligence.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology AgencyUnknownYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 100SingaporeCited for the approach to determine whether a duty of care has been established.
Zheng Yu Shan v Lian Beng Construction (1988) Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 6SingaporeCited to support that the first respondent, as the appellant’s employer, owed the appellant a duty of care to take reasonable care for the appellant’s safety at work.
Parno v SC Marine Pte LtdUnknownYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 377SingaporeCited to support that the first respondent, as the appellant’s employer, owed the appellant a duty of care to take reasonable care for the appellant’s safety at work.
BNJ (suing by her lawful father and litigation representative, B) v SMRT Trains Ltd and anotherUnknownYes[2014] 2 SLR 7SingaporeCited for the relevant consideration in determining the requisite standard of care is the cost and practicability of steps to eliminate or mitigate that risk.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co PtyHouse of LordsYes[1967] 1 AC 617United KingdomCited to support the horning system is an extremely low-cost solution, and is simple to implement.
Munshi Mohammad Faiz v Interpro Construction Pte Ltd and others and another appealUnknownYes[2021] 4 SLR 1371SingaporeCited to support that it was permissible to hold multiple defendants vicariously liable for the negligence of a single tortfeasor, ie, dual vicarious liability.
Ng Huat Seng and another v Munib Mohammad Madni and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 1074SingaporeCited for the general two-stage test to determine whether each defendant ought to be held vicariously liable for a tortfeasor’s negligence.
Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society and othersEnglish Supreme CourtYes[2012] 3 WLR 1319United KingdomCited for the policy factors that would usually make it fair, just and reasonable for vicarious liability to be imposed in employment relationships.
Cheng William v Allister Lim & Thrumurgan and another and another appealUnknownYes[2015] 3 SLR 201SingaporeCited for contributory negligence is a partial defence that reduces the quantum of damages payable to plaintiffs if they fail to safeguard their own interests.
Ng Swee Eng (administrator of the estate of Tan Chee Wee, deceased) v Ang Oh ChuanUnknownYes[2002] 2 SLR(R) 321SingaporeCited for the guidance on the share of responsibility, the courts take into consideration the relative causative potency and the relative moral blameworthiness of the parties’ conduct.
Asnah bte Ab Rahman v Li JianlinCourt of AppealYes[2016] 2 SLR 944SingaporeCited for the apportionment of liability in negligence involves a very fact-sensitive balance.
Jackson v MurrayUKSCYes[2015] UKSC 5United KingdomCited for the apportionment exercise should be applied in a “rough and ready” manner, for the factors that the court is required to consider are “incapable of precise measurement” and are often “incommensurable
Ng Li Ning v Ting Jun Heng and anotherUnknownYes[2021] 2 SLR 1267SingaporeCited for an appellate court should not intervene on the issue of apportionment by the trial judge unless it was clearly against the weight of evidence or was plainly wrong.
Goh Sin Huat Electrical Pte Ltd v Ho See Jui (trading as Xuanhua Art Gallery) and anotherUnknownYes[2012] 3 SLR 1038SingaporeCited for an appellate court ought to intervene in appeals against apportionment of liability when it can be shown that the trial judge erred in principle, misapprehended the facts, or is otherwise clearly shown to have been wrong.
Neo Siong Chew v Chew Guan SengHigh CourtYes[2013] SGHC 93SingaporeCited as analogous cases to find that the appellant was liable for 33.33% of the damages.
Hwa Aik Engineering Pte Lt v Munshi Mohammad Faiz and anotherHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC(A) 1SingaporeCited for the issue was considered in Hwa Aik Engineering Pte Lt v Munshi Mohammad Faiz and another [2021] SGHC(A) 1 (“Hwa Aik”), which was an application for leave to appeal two issues arising from my decision in Munshi.
The Subsidiary Management Corporation No 01 – Strata Title Plan No 4355 v Janaed and another and another appealUnknownYes[2022] 2 SLR 743SingaporeCited for defendants who wish to claim a contribution against each other should take note that they have to file the requisite notices of contribution under the [Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)] so that the issue can be dealt with by the trial judge.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Contributory Negligence and Personal Injuries Act 1953Singapore
Evidence Act 1893Singapore
Civil Law ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Excavator
  • Worksite
  • Banksman
  • Contributory negligence
  • Duty of care
  • Horning system
  • Vicarious liability

15.2 Keywords

  • Negligence
  • Construction accident
  • Workplace injury
  • Contributory negligence
  • Excavator
  • Worksite safety

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Negligence95
Torts90
Contributory negligence80
Personal Injury75
Vicarious liability65
Construction Law40
Civil Litigation30
Business Law20

16. Subjects

  • Tort Law
  • Construction Accidents
  • Workplace Safety