Singapore court hears worker's allegations that supervisor ignored cries for help, employer rejects his story entirely
The High Court of Singapore recently dealt with a workplace accident claim involving a worker who alleged that his former employer's negligence resulted in serious injuries during a workplace incident.
The case, HC/OC 592/2024, centred on events that purportedly occurred on 24 April 2023 at a worksite where the worker had been employed for nearly three years.
The worker argued that his supervisor had instructed him to climb onto an elevated platform for a work briefing during the evening hours.
He claimed that while descending from this platform, he slipped and fell from a significant height, sustaining injuries to his shoulder and experiencing numbness in his right leg.
Despite his calls for help, he alleged that his supervisor, who was positioned nearby, failed to provide any assistance. Meanwhile, the employer completely disputed that any such accident had occurred.
The worker had extensive construction experience, starting his career in China at age 17 before moving to Singapore in 2012.
He had worked for seven different construction companies in Singapore, including the employer in question from 29 July 2020 to 5 June 2023.
Throughout his employment, he was deployed to the construction site of what eventually became a condominium development.
On the evening of 24 April 2023, the worker claimed he was tasked by his site supervisor to clear construction debris alongside a fellow construction worker. According to his account, there had been rain earlier that evening, and at approximately 8:00pm, the rain had passed, leaving the worksite dimly lit.
The worker alleged that his supervisor "instructed [the worker] to ascend a ladder onto an elevated platform/pavilion where he was standing" to brief him about work arrangements for the following day.
The worker's version described how after completing this briefing, he began descending from the elevated platform using the ladder.
He claimed that whilst descending, he slipped and fell from approximately three metres onto the ground, with his shoulder hitting a metal pipe before landing on his back and buttocks.
Despite shouting for help multiple times, he alleged that his supervisor, who "could and would have heard [him]" from the elevated platform, provided no assistance.
The employer completely disputed that any workplace accident had occurred on 24 April 2023. Their defence presented a markedly different version, arguing that the worker's team had been assigned finishing works at ground level.
The employer maintained that "none of the assigned works involved the use of ladders or elevated platforms."
The employer's safety protocols specifically prohibited certain types of ladders on site. According to their in-house rules, workers were not permitted to "use 'A' frame ladder onsite," and only platform ladders were allowed.
The employer argued that all platform ladders on site ranged from 1.1 metres to a maximum of 2.5 metres in height, making it impossible for anyone to fall from the three-metre height claimed by the worker.
The employer's witnesses testified that the team, including the worker, had completed all assigned work by approximately 6:45pm on 24 April 2023.
No briefing was conducted at 8:00pm, as this would have been after the worker had already finished his duties for the day. The employer maintained that the worker left the worksite independently to take public transport home.
The medical evidence presented significant challenges for the worker's case. When he visited a medical clinic the day after the alleged accident, he informed the attending doctor that he had "slipped and fell the day prior" and complained of "right shoulder pain."
The doctor noted that the worker made no mention of "anything about a fall from height" and observed no "external injuries which would be consistent with a fall from a 3-metre height."
The situation became more complex when the worker developed right foot numbness following an injection at the clinic.
The doctor informed the employer's workplace safety and health manager that the worker needed hospitalisation due to "right foot numbness after injection," rather than injuries from a workplace accident.
This medical complication led to the worker's referral to Tan Tock Seng Hospital for further evaluation.
During the worker's hospitalisation from 26 April to 6 May 2023, employer representatives visited him multiple times.
However, according to their testimony, the worker only mentioned feeling unwell and suffering from a numb foot.
The court noted that "at no time throughout the course of these numerous interactions did [the worker] tell any of [the employer's] employees that he had an accident at the worksite."
The court identified numerous inconsistencies in the worker's testimony that significantly undermined his credibility. One problematic area involved conflicting accounts about which shoulder was injured.
The worker initially reported right shoulder pain to the clinic doctor on 25 April 2023, but informed hospital doctors on 26 April 2023 that he had left shoulder pain.
The judge found this uncertainty particularly troubling, noting that "for an injury that has allegedly caused permanent incapacity such that [the worker] has been deprived of his ability to even meaningfully work, it seems entirely inexplicable that [the worker] could be unclear about which shoulder exactly suffered the brunt of the impact."
This confusion about such a fundamental aspect of the alleged injury raised serious questions about the accident's occurrence.
Additional inconsistencies emerged regarding the worker's account of events following the alleged accident.
He provided conflicting versions about whether other workers were present at the worksite and how he had contacted his supervisor the following day.
The court also noted discrepancies between the worker's court testimony and his initial legal demand letter, which described different circumstances surrounding the alleged accident.
The High Court ultimately dismissed the worker's claim, finding that no workplace accident had occurred on 24 April 2023 as alleged.
The judge concluded that "the version of events advanced by [the employer] is much more plausible and likely than the narrative peddled by [the worker]."
The court determined that the worker's account was "marked by inconsistencies, improbabilities, illogicality, and lacking internal coherence."
The court acknowledged workplace issues generally, noting that "one hears occasional accounts of construction workers being mistreated, underpaid or otherwise being given a raw deal."
However, the judge emphasised that such narratives "cannot be the compass for fact-finding or for ascribing legal liability. Each case must ultimately be decided on the facts and be examined with a clear-eyed, objective mind, unclouded by assumption or emotion."
In delivering the final judgment, the court stated that "the evidence is clear – [the employer] did not contribute to the apparent events of 24 April 2023 as there was simply no such accident that occurred that day as has been pleaded. There was therefore nothing for [the employer] to be responsible for."
The case was dismissed, with the court finding that the worker had failed to prove his version of events on a balance of probabilities.
