SMRT files defence against lawsuit by family of Thai girl

[phankao]

caroline3sg:

limlim:

1. SMRT has been operating for decades in SG w/o accident.


2. Many developed countries don't have barriers too.

So, based on reasonableness, there is no liability on SMRT on not providing a barrier.

So, the thai has no case.

There was precedent of accident in which there was a female teacher who fell onto the tracks while reading students' scripts and died when hit by train.

The Thai girl's father wants to get compensated for her handicap as she needs prostatic legs for life.

Parents never teach kid to be careful properly. Some more so daring to send a 14year old alone overseas. This not a school trip, leh.

Even in BKK, there's no barriers, right?

I've always told my kids to stand far behind the yellow line. THey can get disorientated/dizzy as the train arrives, so better to be safer.

[limlim]

caroline3sg:

There was precedent of accident in which there was a female teacher who fell onto the tracks while reading students' scripts and died when hit by train.

The Thai girl's father wants to get compensated for her handicap as she needs prostatic legs for life.

For your example, who is negligence? it seems to be the teacher but maybe it is better not to comment w/o more facts.

The term compensation implies that the other party is liable.

However, based on the points that I have mentioned, clearly not having barrier cannot be used as a reason to say that SMRT is negligent or liable

The Thai should ask for \"goodwill donation\" from SMRT instead, not a lawsuit to ask for \"compensation\", which, clearly, has no case.

[caroline3sg]

limlim:

caroline3sg:

There was precedent of accident in which there was a female teacher who fell onto the tracks while reading students' scripts and died when hit by train.

The Thai girl's father wants to get compensated for her handicap as she needs prostatic legs for life.

For your example, who is negligence? it seems to be the teacher but maybe it is better not to comment w/o more facts.

The term compensation implies that the other party is liable.

However, based on the points that I have mentioned, clearly not having barrier cannot be used as a reason to say that SMRT is negligent or liable

The Thai should ask for \"goodwill donation\" from SMRT instead, not a lawsuit to ask for \"compensation\", which, clearly, has no case.

I am not disputing with you regarding the Thai father has no case. I am just stating there was similar case of accident with no barriers installed.

SMRT gave $5000 as \"goodwill\" and he treated it as compensation which to him is a small amount (he is in insurance line), that's why he sued.

[tankee]

since he is in insurance line, wouldn't his daughter be insured? :?


able to send his girl to study here, he must be of quite senior level, if not owner of the firm.

[Jennifer]

If the Thai family wins the case, who knows how many desperate pple will create a similar "accident" to get a big sum of compensation?

[pinky]

Jennifer:

If the Thai family wins the case, who knows how many desperate pple will create a similar \"accident\" to get a big sum of compensation?

true, the $3.4M claim is a huge amount and must be one of the highest so far

[Daddy D]

If SMRT loses this case... we can expect higher fare increase soon? :?

[hquek]

if smrt loses this case, then next time someone spill hot coffee in macD, we’re going to expect another lawsuit.


not sure how crowded the station is, but so far, I’ve not been at a platform where it’s so overflowing with pp that one must stand past the yellow lines.

In any case, folks taking mrt must resign themselves to listening a LOT more announcements about standing behind the yellow lines.

[verykiasu2010]

at best a try luck law suit, like in US, lawyers try all kind of stunts to get money


smrt can counter-sue for business disruption as a result of the carelessness of the passenger

[raysusan]

Thai teen who lost legs was negligent: SMRT


http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Eekvfv5YaYF0TPPPL_of8w--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en-SG/blogs/singaporescene/630yahoo_amkmrt.jpg\">

SMRT has said that the Thai teenager who lost both her legs after she fell onto the tracks in April had failed to ensure her own safety while waiting for the train.
In its defence against a $3.4 million claim by Nitcharee Peneakchanasak's family, the transport operator said that there were safety measures in place at the above-ground Ang Mo Kio Station where she had fallen, and that the 15-year-old had fallen due to her negligence, reported The Straits Times.
According to defence papers filed in the High Court by its lawyer K. Anparasan of KhattarWong on Wednesday, SMRT argued that Nitcharee had fallen \"on her own accord\".
The transport operator said she failed to take adequate precautions to ensure her safety and did not keep a proper lookout or pay attention to the approaching train.
\"By standing behind the yellow safety line until the train had stopped, the plaintiff would have been sufficiently and/or reasonably safe from falling onto the tracks at the MRT station,\" said SMRT.
It said that on top of the yellow safety line, there are warning signs on display and safety announcements are broadcast before train arrivals.
If visitors follow the safety measures, even without a barrier on the platform, there would not be any danger posed even when the platform is crowded, said SMRT, adding that the incident took place at 11 am, which was not during a peak period.
SMRT was responding to the teenager's father Kittanesh Peneakchanasak's charges that Nitcharee had been standing behind the yellow line and had fallen after she was pushed by the crowd.
The Thai family, who filed the writ in June, also charged that the stations had inadequate measures in place.
When contacted, Nitcharee's father told the paper he stood by his daughter's account of what happened and would continue with the lawsuit.
In April, Nitcharee, who was in Singapore for a holiday and to study English, fell just as a train was pulling in, resulting in the loss of both her legs. Currently, one of her legs ends below the knee, the other, above the knee.
SMRT had offered of $5,000 as compensation but her father has rejected it, saying that his daughter's medical expenses and the 20 pairs of prosthetic legs she might require in her lifetime are reasons to sue SMRT.
Ang Mo Kio is among the stations yet to have barriers installed on the platform to prevent falls onto the tracks. The Land Transport Authority expects all stations to have the barriers by June next year

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/thai-teen-lost-legs-negligent-smrt-044417908.html