What comes to mind when you think about Tort?
The definition of Tort is a civil wrong that causes harm or loss to another person, property, or reputation, making the perpetrator liable. The perpetrator is also commonly known as the "Tortfeasor".
When we talk about tort, what comes to mind? Tortious activities committed by tortfeasors, where the victims have suffered injuries, even fatally, sometimes to the death of the victims. What then happens to the loved ones of the victims? Parents, children, grandparents, or even people who are dependent on the victims who are now deceased. The law is written broadly but firmly that the public is safeguarded, to an extent, to what is deemed fair, reasonable, and does not impose injustice on the wrongdoer.
Victims wish to be compensated (or put back in their original position) after suffering a tortious act.
If a victim passes due to the incident, their loved ones are legally entitled to file for bereavement, dependency claims, and estate claims.
Practical Things to Consider
- Limitation Period
- Limitation Act 1953
- Dependency / estate claim limitation periods — Civil Law Act 1956
Fatal Accident Claims
What do we call claims that the loved ones apply for after the victim is deceased?
- Dependency claim — s.7(2), s.7(3), s.28A CLA 1956
- Estate claim — s.8 CLA
Factors to Consider
- Does the victim / executor / executrix / personal representatives / defendant have a case?
- Bear in mind the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1953 — commonly 3 or 6 years depending on the claim involved.
- Which Court will hear this case? Refer to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (note there have been amendments).
- Who are the Plaintiff and Defendant? Who are you acting for?
- What are the facts of the case? Are there any other statutes to be aware of? e.g. Public Authorities Protection Act 1948, Road Transport Act 1987 (Act 333), Road Traffic Rules.
When we open television, YouTube, or social media apps, we are always bombarded with all kinds of news. Car accidents, a construction worker falling off a scaffolding structure, even civilians going about their day who somehow got roped into severe disasters such as gas leak explosions — what do these incidents have in common?
The victims in these incidents always suffer some extent of injury, even death. Surviving victims, or family members, as stated previously, would want accountability and compensation for pain and suffering, and financial or bodily losses.
Types of Tortious Incidents
- Motor vehicle accidents (including fatal)
- Vicarious liability
- Occupiers' liability
- Rylands v Fletcher
- Professional Negligence
- Nuisance (Private and Public)
- Occupational Safety and Health 1994 (amended 2022)
First, we will ascertain the following:
- Duty of Care (Donoghue v Stevenson + Caparo Test — Proximity, Reasonable, Policy)
- Is there a breach? What is the breach?
- Defences for Defendant
- Factual Causation (But-for test, material contribution, novus actus interveniens)
- Legal Causation (Is the damage reasonably foreseeable? Wagon Mound. 'Kind of damage'; Eggshell thin skull rule)
- Damages (+ principles of damages + multiplicand × multiplier)
- Reasonable foreseeability of harm
- Legal proximity
- Fair, just, and reasonable to impose liability
Standard for Professionals
What are the differences in tests for professionals between Bolam and Rogers v Whitaker? Consider this carefully as it is frequently tested.
This substantially depends on what the tortious activity is in the General Paper. What is the type of incident? What harm or damage was caused to the property or victim?
A. Rylands v Fletcher
A landmark English tort case that established the rule of Strict Liability for "dangerous escapes" from land — a specialised strict-liability extension.
Requirements to establish:
- Dangerous thing escaped
- Accumulation on the land
- Foreseeable damage from the escaped thing
- "Non-natural" use of land
Private nuisance — substantial and unreasonable interference with another's personal use or enjoyment of land. Examples: smell, noise, vibration, smoke, fumes, flood, water, dust, etc.
Elements
- Interference
- Unreasonable interference
- Caused damage
Case Laws
Interference in public rights. When individuals suffer damage in public. For example, DBKL has failed to maintain the trees in their area of authority and subsequently a tree has fallen on you.
Occupiers' liability occurs when a person comes onto the premises of another and gets injured whilst on the property. There are different types of people entering public or private spaces:
- Contractual entrant
- Invitee
- Licensee
- Trespasser
Employers (D2) may be liable for a tort committed by an employee (D1) if:
- Employment relationship is established
- The tort was committed in the course of employment — "close connection"
- What fields of activities?
- Was the wrongful act closely connected to those activities?
This area of the law protects the public when they seek professional services from doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other professionals.
There are two categories of medical duty, as held in Zulhasnimar Hasan v Dr Kuppus 2017:
This is the most frequently tested area in the Tort section of the General Paper.
We apply the usual procedure of whether there is a duty of care, what was the breach (and the tort type from the 7), examining both Factual and Legal causation, and finally, what damages the victim can claim and what defences the tortfeasor may raise.
Factual Causation
Legal Causation
- Contributory Negligence — reduced by a just and equitable percentage; this is NOT a complete defence. s.12 CLA — refer to Lou Chee Sent.
- Agony of the Moment
- Novus Actus Interveniens
Principles of Damages
- Causation, Remoteness, Mitigation — Hadley v Baxendale, British Electric Co v Underground Railways Co
- Refer to Kasirin bin Kasmini v the Official Administrator & Anor for tortious principles of damages
Special Damages
Pre-trial pecuniary losses that must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved — Ong Ah Long v Dr S. Underwood 1983. These include medical costs, transportation costs, repair for damaged vehicles, and special care costs. Must be supported by receipts or invoices.
- Medical expenses — Chai Yee Chong: claim costs for government treatment.
- Private hospital treatment — Hong Teng Yong v Khaw Kim Seng: no proof that the same treatment was unavailable at a government hospital for the particular fracture — unable to claim. BUT CAN CLAIM IF REASONABLE — Yaakub Foong + Chai Yee Chong.
- Traditional medicine — can be claimed based on facts and circumstances — Seah Yit Chen v Singapore Bus Company.
- Artificial limbs / wheelchairs — Thirmalai.
- Transportation costs — Chan Kim Hee v Karam Singh & Anor: awarded costs for expenses incurred for family visits and outpatient treatment.
- Cost of care — prove that nursing costs are required — Chong Yong Khoon. Multiplicand for care costs: market value, wages lost when caring, future care at a private institution.
- Police reports, sketches, specialist reports, medical reports
- SOCSO — non-deductible from civil court awards as per s.28A.
- EPF — a form of special damage — Danabalan Sicalingam v Narender Kaur Gurdip & Anor 2018.
- Noorfadila binti Ahmad Saikin v Chayed bin Basirun & Ors 2012 — discrimination because the plaintiff was pregnant.
General Damages
Pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of future earnings, loss of earning capacity. These are calculated and awarded by the Court in relation to s.28A(2)(c)(iii) CLA — multiplier × multiplicand.
Mitigation
Loss of Future Earnings — s.28A(2)(c)(iii) CLA
- Can claim before age of 60
- Must have been in good health before the accident
- Receiving earnings from their own gainful activity (not illegal)
MULTIPLICAND — take into account what the victim was earning at the time. Prospect of promotion not taken into account. Taxable. Deduct living expenses. Aim to mitigate loss.
MULTIPLIER — based on the age of the victim at the time of injury. Below age 30, the number of years of purchase is 16 as per s.28A(d)(i) CLA. Between 31–59, calculate as: (60 minus age of victim at time of injury) divided by 2. Loss of EPF — refer to Swee Boon King v Thong Tin Sing & Anor.
Loss of Earning Capacity
Loss of Amenities
- Personal injury — loss of future earnings s.28 CLA 1956
- Fatal accidents — dependency claims for loss of support under s.7 CLA — Multiplicand × Multiplier (deduction of personal living expenses)
Multiplier Table
It is 31.03.2026. You are once again sipping your coffee at your desk, working on the latest case you have been assigned: the Pokémon Card Case. Sima comes in and requests that you join her in the meeting room for a client consultation.
A young man is sitting on a wheelchair with his right leg visibly casted. He introduces himself as Roan, 25 years old, and the man sitting beside him is his father, Paul. Roan explains that he was involved in a car accident at midnight on 01.01.2026. He was driving home after attending a New Year's countdown and was staying in his lane when another car swerved and crashed into him.
Roan recalls feeling excruciating pain and his vision blurring as he heard unrecognisable voices talking to him, right before falling into a coma. Roan only woke from his coma a month ago; he is heavily traumatised and requires weekly therapy sessions. His car is completely totalled. Without a vehicle, his family must rely on public transport and Grab rides to visit him in the hospital. Roan's leg is severely fractured and in a cast, and he does not know when he can return to work. He was a construction worker before the accident, and his doctor has informed him that returning to construction sites poses too much of a risk to his recovery — he is now a paraplegic.
His father adds that they want to sue and seek maximum compensation, as the driver who crashed into Roan was intoxicated. The tortfeasor's name, as you and Sima skim through the reports, is Anas.
Cause of Action
The defendant, or tortfeasor, as a reasonable layman will be subjected to the standard duty of care for driving on the road. Anas has clearly breached his duty of care by driving while intoxicated, subsequently crashing into Roan who then fell into a coma and has a fractured leg.
We can apply the Caparo Test:
- Reasonably foreseeable that the defendant's actions would cause damage? Yes — he was driving intoxicated and swerved, crashing into Roan.
- Relationship of sufficient closeness? Yes — they are both drivers on the road and would be reasonably expected to drive safely.
- Fair, just, and reasonable to impose duty of care? Yes — it is illegal to drive while intoxicated.
Factual Causation
Legal Causation
Defences Available to Anas
Anas might raise Contributory Negligence under s.12 CLA, however this is only a partial defence and does not dissolve his liability. Anas would need to prove that Roan also demonstrated fault, which is unlikely given Roan was in his own lane and Anas was the one who swerved.
Damages
Special Damages — specifically pleaded and strictly proved. These include:
- Medical bills
- Wheelchair costs
- Transportation expenses (family visits, Grab rides to hospital)
- Police reports, scene sketches, specialist and medical reports
- Salary from date of accident to date of judgment (with documentary evidence)
General Damages — loss of future income, loss of earning capacity, loss of amenities (physical and mental pain, daily activities). Awarded at the Court's discretion.
Calculation — Loss of Future Earnings
As per s.28A(2)(i) CLA, for claimants under the age of 30, the multiplier is fixed at 16.