https://www.hcamag.com/asia/specialisation/employment-law/whos-liable-for-a-workplace-accident-high-court-decides-against-multiple-entities/483345
Case discusses liabilities among employer, contractor, and third party
02 Apr 2024
Share
Singapore’s High Court recently dealt with a case involving a construction worker who was injured in a worksite accident when an excavator unexpectedly moved forward and collided with him.
The case raised complex issues of liability and apportionment of fault among the worker's employer, the main contractor of the worksite, and a third party whose adjacent construction site was involved in the events leading up to the accident.
The case highlighted the importance of proper coordination and communication between different worksites, as well as the need for adequate safety measures and supervision to protect workers in inherently dangerous environments.
According to records, the worker, an Indian national employed by the first respondent as a construction labourer, was assigned to assist in excavation work at the second respondent's worksite on the day of the accident.
He was working alongside an excavator operator, also employed by the first respondent, and was tasked with acting as a banksman. As the work progressed, a truck from the adjacent worksite, operated by the third respondent, arrived and attempted to enter its own site.
However, there was insufficient space for the truck to manoeuvre due to the presence of water barriers surrounding the second respondent's worksite. In the ensuing commotion, the excavator unexpectedly moved forward and collided with the worker, causing him to fall and suffer severe injuries to his right foot and both ankles.
The worker subsequently filed a claim against his employer, the main contractor, and the third party, seeking damages for his injuries.
The worker argued that the accident was caused by the respondents' breach of their common law and statutory duties.
He alleged that his employer failed to implement necessary safety measures, the main contractor did not effectively supervise the work, and the third party's banksman was negligent in directing the excavator operator to move forward without ensuring it was safe to do so.
The respondents, in turn, disputed the worker's account of events and raised various defenses. The employer and main contractor argued that the worker was contributorily negligent for standing in the excavator's blind spot, while the third party denied owing any duty of care to the worker.
The trial judge found the employer liable for the worker's injuries, both directly for failing to provide effective supervision and vicariously for the excavator operator's negligence.
The judge also held the third party vicariously liable for its banksman's negligence but absolved the main contractor of any liability.