Tort Cases

1. Tort Cases http://tinyurl.com/classiccaselaw

2. Reference • www.singaporelaw.sg • Singapore Business Law by Benny Tabalujan and Valerie Du Toit-Low

3. Negligence: Duty of Care • MrsDonoghue’s friend bought her a bottle of ginger beer, manufactured by Stephenson • Mrs D found a decomposed snail in it,fell ill • Mrs D had no contract with Stephenson

4. Negligence: Duty of Care • House of Lords: Mrs D could sue in tort, not contract • Stephenson owed a Duty of Care – • You must take reasonable care not to injure your neighbour • Your neighbour is someone closely and directly affected by my actions

5. Negligence: Duty of Care • Anns leased a block of flats from a builder • There were defects in construction • The London Borough of Merton had approved construction • Did London Borough of Merton owe a Duty to Anns?

6. Negligence: Duty of Care • House of Lords: Yes, the test is • Was there a relationship of proximity between them, so that carelessness would cause damage? Yes • Are there any reasons to reduce this duty? No

7. Negligence: Breach of Duty • Wells pulled on a door handle made by Cooper (amateur carpenter) • The door handle fell off and Wells fell down the stairs

8. Negligence: Breach of Duty • Court: Cooper had not breached his duty of care • He had met the standard of a reasonable amateur carpenter, he was not an expert

9. Negligence: Breach of Duty • Bolton’s house was near a cricket field owned by Stone • Bolton was hit by a cricket ball • The balls usually did not reach this far, only happened 6 times in 30 years

10. Negligence: Breach of Duty • House of Lords: There was a Duty of Care, but the Duty was not breached • The chances of that happening were too small for the club to take steps to prevent them

11. Negligence: Breach of Duty • Latimer worked in AEC Ltd’s factory • The factory became flooded and management did everything possible to clear the effects of the flood, but the factory floor was still slippery • Latimer walked on the floor, fell and was injured

12. Negligence: Breach of Duty • House of Lords: There was a Duty of Care, but there was no breach • The risk was not great enough to justify the management doing further steps like closing the factory

13. Negligence: Breach must cause damage • Barnett was poisoned with arsenic without his knowledge – at the time there was no cure • He went to A&E but the doctor failed to diagnose him • He died at home 5 hours later

14. Negligence: Breach must cause damage • Court: There was a Duty of Care • The Duty of Care had been breached • BUT the breach did not cause his death – he would have died anyway

15. Negligence: Breach must cause damage (remoteness) • The ship Wagon Mound was loading fuel oil at a wharf • Defendant was negligent and spilled fuel oil, which spread to the next wharf, owned by Plaintiff • Plaintiff received expert advice that the fuel oil would not burn in water, so he let his workers continue welding at the wharf • The welding sparks ignited the fuel and fire damaged Plaintiff’s wharf

16. Negligence: Breach must cause damage (remoteness) • Privy Council – It was too remote / unforeseeable that the fuel oil would burn in water • Since the damage was not reasonably foreseeable, Defendant would not be liable

17. Negligence: Defences • Xu Jin Long was a construction worker working for Nian Chuan Construction • Xu walked up a metal staircase to his dorm, it collapsed and he fell 5 metres to the ground • Nian Chuan Construction had given instructions for the staircase to be removed

18. Negligence:Defences • High Court: Nian Chuan had given instructions to dismantle, but had not given warning not to use the stairs or cordoned it of • A reasonable worker would not have known • Xu had no contributory negligence, NC were fully liable

19. Negligent Statements: Duty of Care • Hedley Byrne Co were advertising agents who wanted credit info on a new client Easipower before doing work, so they asked Easipower’s bank, Heller & Partners • Heller told Hedley Byrne that Easipower was “respectably constituted … good for ordinary business” • Easipower collapsed

20. Negligent Statements: Duty of Care • House of Lords: There was a special relationship because • Hedley Byrne could reasonably rely on Heller’s judgment • Heller gave HB info that they knew HB would rely on • Therefore Heller owed a duty of care to HB • (Special case: Heller escaped because they had an exclusion clause)

21. Negligent Statements: Breach of Duty • Yeo Yoke Mui engaged lawyer Ng Liang Poh to check a corner terrace house before purchase • Ng got a road interpretation plan from LTA “land is affected by Cat 4 and 5 roads” • Following standard procedure, Ng forwarded the plan to Yeo • Yeo paid the deposit, later discovered that land affected by Cat 4 roads cannot be redeveloped

22. Negligent Statements: Breach of Duty • Court of Appeal: It was not enough for Ng to following standard procedure and forwarding the plan • In this case, because of the special nature of Cat 4 roads, Ng should have explained it to Yeo as well

23. Defamation: Referring to the Plaintiff • SDP wrote an article about the NKF scandal • “Singaporeans must note that the NKF is not an aberration of the PAP system. It is, instead, a product of it.” • “How does this compare to the PAP? The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) is a business entity set up, and chaired, by Mr Lee Kuan Yew to manage and invest our national reserves.” • Is not power in Singapore centred around one party, if not one individual?”

24. Defamation: Referring to the Plaintiff • There was “defamation by implication” – the reader was invited to compare a person (LKY) with another disreputable individual (Chairman of NKF) – implying that LKY was also dishonest • The words were capable of being understood to refer to both LHL and LKY • The ordinary reader would have understood the words as referring to both LHL and LKY

25. Defamation:Defences • SICC posted a Notice on the notice boards of their clubhouses. • They suspended KSP's club membership because she had falsely declared Mr Ng Kong Yeam ("NKY") as her spouse to make use of the Club's facilities since September 1992, • The marriage certificate showed that her marriage to NKY was only registered on 24 August 2005

26. Defamation:Defences • It was defamatory – created an ill opinion of KSP in the mind of the reasonable reader and to cause KSP to be shunned or avoided as a result • BUT SICC had the defence of Justification: The statement of KSP's dishonest conduct was substantially true!