Hazard Of Steel Benches

For quite a while now I've been meaning to write something very basic about the tort of negligence. Of course I am not a lawyer, but there was once when I read quite widely on this particular subject when I had to defend my valuation report in court.

I delayed writing this article until a friend sent me a weird new today. So I thought I might as well take the opportunity to, finally, write this long-overdue article.

In order for the injured party to succeed in his claim under the tort of negligence, he must satisfy 3 main requirements, viz:

1) Whether there is a duty owed to the injured party;

2) If there is indeed a duty owed, whether there is a breach of that duty;

3) Whether the loss is a result of the breach of that duty (causation).

Obviously there is a long dicussion on each of the above requirement, but for the purpose of this article, I'd like to discuss the extent of the responsibility when there is indeed a duty owed to the claimant.

In Chan Kwai-ngor v Leung Fat-hang [1992] HKC, there was a warning notice that the floor in a dim sum restaurant was wet. But the notice was not put up in a place where it was easily seen. The plaintiff, who was a patron of the shop, slipped in the entrance hall when entering the kitchen while trying to get some dim sum. She did not wait for people to serve her. As a result of the fall, she suffered bodily injury. She sued the restaurant for negligence.

The court held that the agent who's managing the building was liable as it did not take sufficient steps to prevent the incident from happening.

I must point out that the standard of care that is required here is that of a reasonable person. If, for example, it is not reasonably foreseeable by a layman in the street that someone might slip on the wet floor, then it is doubtful that the action against the restaurant would have succeeded.

As you can see, the standard of care in this particular case was very high. Having the warning sign was deemed not good enough. It was not revealed what was the exact content of that warning sign, but I supposed it didn't really matter because the point is that it was put up in a place that was hard to see.

Local authorities, too, owe the duty of care to the public at large. In Malaysia, it is unclear whether one can actually sue the local authority for injuries suffered due to, say, faulty swings or see-saws in public parks. We are all familiar with warning signs in the car parks, e.g. Park At Own Risk, something like that. Perhaps some of the lawyer readers of this blog would like to comment on this.

What kind of warning signs would be required for public parks or other common properties. Perhaps the local authorities should consider putting up a warning sign containing this:

MALE VISITORS TO THE PARK

STRICTLY ADVISED NOT TO

INSERT PENIS INTO HOLES

IN STEEL BENCHES.

Or something to that effect...

Then maybe this guy would have been spared of the misadventure. But of course who in his right mind would have foreseen anyone could have wanted to have sex with a bench?