law memo

This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law
Reports.

BNJ (suing by her lawful father and litigation representative, B) v SMRT Trains Ltd and another
[2013] SGHC 286
High Court — Suit No 432 of 2011
Vinodh Coomaraswamy JC (as he then was)
29–31 October 2012; 1–2, 5–9, 19–20 November 2012; 11 March 2013
Tort — Negligence — Breach of Duty
Tort — Occupier’s Liability — Who is an Occupier
Tort — Negligence — Res Ipsa Loquitur
Tort — Breach of Statutory Duty — Essential Factors
Contract — Contractual Terms — Implied Terms
31 December 2013

Judgment reserved

Vinodh Coomaraswamy J:
1

On 3 April 2011, a train coming into the Ang Mo Kio MRT station

(“AMK Station”) struck the plaintiff, causing her tragic and life-changing injuries. She was then just fourteen years old. In these proceedings, she seeks damages from two defendants for the injuries she suffered on that day. The first defendant is SMRT Trains Ltd (“SMRT”). SMRT is a public transport operator and holds the license to operate the mass rapid transit (“MRT”) system along the North-South line. SMRT operates AMK Station and the train which injured the plaintiff. The second defendant is the Land Transport
Authority of Singapore (“the LTA”). The LTA is a statutory board charged

BNJ v SMRT Trains Ltd & anor

[2013] SGHC 286

with regulating, amongst other things, Singapore’s MRT system. The LTA is the owner of AMK Station and regulates SMRT’s operations.
The plaintiff is injured on 3 April 2011
2

The plaintiff arrived in Singapore on 14 March 2011 1 to study English.

Her course was scheduled to end on 8 April 2011. She lived while in
Singapore with a host family in Ang Mo Kio. She commuted from Ang Mo
Kio to her place of study at Peninsula Plaza each weekday by MRT via the
North-South line from AMK