reporter2
05-06-13, 18:08
http://www.straitstimes.com/archive/friday/premium/singapore/story/standard-practice-wont-absolve-condo-managers-20130531
Standard practice 'won't absolve condo managers'
Judge: Condo liable for resident's fall though its cleaning system similar to other estates'
Published on May 31, 2013
By K.C. Vijayan, Senior Law Correspondent
CONDO managers may want to review their cleaning procedures after the High Court held that a standard industry practice claimed to have been followed by one block was not enough to exempt its management from blame after an accident.
The court's finding came in a dispute in which an elderly resident sued the management corporation (MC) of The Equatorial condominium on Stevens Road for injuries he suffered in its basement carpark.
Mr George Rott, 84, slipped in a puddle of water and oil, sustaining injuries to his left knee and right shoulder that required surgery, and had to fly to the United States for additional treatment.
The court accepted that he saw the puddle as he was walking and stepped into it while his wife Rebecca deliberately walked around it in June 2007.
Mr Rott, an Italian-trained doctor with a US doctorate in business, had sued the corporation for failing to put in place an adequate inspection and cleaning system to ensure the carpark was regularly checked and cleaned of oil patches and water puddles.
Represented by lawyer Boey Swee Siang, he sought damages, claiming the management had failed to prevent harm to him by not ensuring the terms of the cleaning services contract were adequate.
A district court found Mr Rott was 65 per cent to blame and the condo was 35 per cent liable.
It is understood that damages now being sought could range between $60,000 and $250,000.
The condo's insurers lodged an appeal which was dismissed by High Court judge Lai Siu Chiu, although she reduced the condo's liability to 25 per cent. This means that Mr Rott will get a quarter of whatever sum that is eventually assessed to be payable to him for his injuries.
"This was a case where both parties were at fault," wrote Justice Lai in judgment grounds released yesterday. "Management committees of condominiums should take heed that the safety of residents is important in the discharge of their responsibilities.
"The proper engagement of services and the proper implementation of systems to discharge their responsibilities should be a matter of priority. At the same time, residents have a responsibility to act reasonably for their own safety."
Lawyer Ramasamy Chettiar argued for the condo's insurers that the maintenance system in place was not inadequate to ensure the safe use of the carpark, pointing out that the cleaning contracts were of the type used by other condominiums.
The documents in question "merely followed what everyone else was doing", he said.
The system in place provided for two sweeping sessions a day plus an inspection and for further ad hoc checks after 5pm by security guards.
Mr Ramasamy added that the actual practice was for cleaners to remove oil patches with chemicals.
Justice Lai stressed that there had to be a proper system for the required cleaning services and to ensure the services are actually carried out.
She went on: "It was telling that a system was quickly implemented after (Mr Rott's) accident, where cleaners and security guards were put on duty on a regular schedule and to check for oil spills respectively."
The judge accepted that Mr Rott's conduct was "clearly foolish and unwise" and that he had to bear the greater degree of blame.
But the condo was also to be faulted for not "having a proper system to address the hazards in the carpark".
[email protected]
Standard practice 'won't absolve condo managers'
Judge: Condo liable for resident's fall though its cleaning system similar to other estates'
Published on May 31, 2013
By K.C. Vijayan, Senior Law Correspondent
CONDO managers may want to review their cleaning procedures after the High Court held that a standard industry practice claimed to have been followed by one block was not enough to exempt its management from blame after an accident.
The court's finding came in a dispute in which an elderly resident sued the management corporation (MC) of The Equatorial condominium on Stevens Road for injuries he suffered in its basement carpark.
Mr George Rott, 84, slipped in a puddle of water and oil, sustaining injuries to his left knee and right shoulder that required surgery, and had to fly to the United States for additional treatment.
The court accepted that he saw the puddle as he was walking and stepped into it while his wife Rebecca deliberately walked around it in June 2007.
Mr Rott, an Italian-trained doctor with a US doctorate in business, had sued the corporation for failing to put in place an adequate inspection and cleaning system to ensure the carpark was regularly checked and cleaned of oil patches and water puddles.
Represented by lawyer Boey Swee Siang, he sought damages, claiming the management had failed to prevent harm to him by not ensuring the terms of the cleaning services contract were adequate.
A district court found Mr Rott was 65 per cent to blame and the condo was 35 per cent liable.
It is understood that damages now being sought could range between $60,000 and $250,000.
The condo's insurers lodged an appeal which was dismissed by High Court judge Lai Siu Chiu, although she reduced the condo's liability to 25 per cent. This means that Mr Rott will get a quarter of whatever sum that is eventually assessed to be payable to him for his injuries.
"This was a case where both parties were at fault," wrote Justice Lai in judgment grounds released yesterday. "Management committees of condominiums should take heed that the safety of residents is important in the discharge of their responsibilities.
"The proper engagement of services and the proper implementation of systems to discharge their responsibilities should be a matter of priority. At the same time, residents have a responsibility to act reasonably for their own safety."
Lawyer Ramasamy Chettiar argued for the condo's insurers that the maintenance system in place was not inadequate to ensure the safe use of the carpark, pointing out that the cleaning contracts were of the type used by other condominiums.
The documents in question "merely followed what everyone else was doing", he said.
The system in place provided for two sweeping sessions a day plus an inspection and for further ad hoc checks after 5pm by security guards.
Mr Ramasamy added that the actual practice was for cleaners to remove oil patches with chemicals.
Justice Lai stressed that there had to be a proper system for the required cleaning services and to ensure the services are actually carried out.
She went on: "It was telling that a system was quickly implemented after (Mr Rott's) accident, where cleaners and security guards were put on duty on a regular schedule and to check for oil spills respectively."
The judge accepted that Mr Rott's conduct was "clearly foolish and unwise" and that he had to bear the greater degree of blame.
But the condo was also to be faulted for not "having a proper system to address the hazards in the carpark".
[email protected]