SINGAPORE – A ship repair worker who fell and hurt his knee after he was pushed while alighting from the back of a lorry is entitled to damages from his employer, a district court has ruled.

Indian national Ramalingam Murugan, 37, sued his employer, Rigel Marine Services, claiming damages for the injuries suffered in the 2021 accident.

In a judgment dated Aug 7, 2023, District Judge Tan May Tee found that the company breached its duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to put in place a safe system for the worker to get up and down from the deck of the lorry.

The quantum of damages will be assessed separately.

Mr Murugan was employed as a structural steel and ship painter by the company, which carries out repairs on marine vessels. 

On the morning of Jan 3, 2021, he was transported from his dormitory to the company’s premises in Boon Lay in a lorry with 24 other workers. There, he was supposed to take another lorry to his designated workplace. 

He said it was raining at the time, and the workers were in a hurry to transfer to the other lorry.

Mr Murugan added that while he was making his way down the lorry, he was pushed by the other workers, lost his balance and fell to the ground.

That evening, he was taken to Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, where he was found to have a fractured knee joint and cartilage injury. He underwent surgery and was on medical leave from Jan 3 to June 2, 2021.

Mr Murugan, represented by Mr Perumal Athitham and Mr Muhamad Ashraf Syed Ansarai, sued his employer for negligence.

His complaint was that the lorry’s tailboard was not lowered and there was no supervisor to ensure that workers alighted safely from the vehicle. 

The company denied his allegations and disputed his account of the incident. It argued that it was not raining at the time, that the workers were not in a rush, and that the accident was caused or contributed by his own carelessness in failing to watch his step.

The company said the tailboard was not lowered because doing so would block the foothold at the back of the lorry that workers use as a step. It argued that the process of alighting from the lorry is so simple and straightforward that no supervision is needed, particularly when Mr Murugan has had 15 years of experience in Singapore’s construction industry. 

It also counterclaimed for the medical expenses that had been paid on the plaintiff’s behalf and wages that had been paid to him while he was on medical leave.

The company’s lawyer, Mr Lennon Wu, pointed out inconsistencies in Mr Murugan’s evidence, such as his differing accounts of the direction he was facing when he alighted.

In her judgment, Judge Tan said while there were various inconsistencies in Mr Murugan’s evidence and the mechanics of how he got injured were “somewhat confusing”, it was clear that he did suffer a fall when he alighted. 

Mr Murugan said he was the fourth worker to alight, and it was not inconceivable that he had been accidentally pushed, with 20 men standing up from their seats, added the judge.

The judge noted that the company failed to get witness testimony from the other workers who saw the accident.

She said that without lowering the tailboard, the process of alighting effectively required a worker to “execute an acrobatic move” by hoisting one leg over the tailboard to lower himself at a height of more than 1m and then swing his other leg over to the ground.

“While such physical manoeuvres might be easily accomplished by the majority of the able-bodied workers, it is certainly not without risks as this accident has amply demonstrated,” she added.