Durairaj Santiran v Singapore Airlines: Negligence & Employer's Duty of Care

In Durairaj Santiran v Singapore Airlines Ltd, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard a negligence claim by Durairaj Santiran, a flight steward, against his employer, Singapore Airlines, for injuries sustained from a fall on 6 September 2019. Santiran alleged a breach of duty of care due to a slippery area on the aircraft floor. Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy dismissed the claim, finding no evidence of a slippery area and no breach of duty of care by Singapore Airlines. The court did not analyze causation, defenses, or quantum.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Claim Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Flight steward Durairaj Santiran sues Singapore Airlines for negligence after a fall. The court dismissed the claim, finding no breach of duty of care.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Vinodh CoomaraswamyJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. The claimant, a flight steward, fell on the floor of the defendant's aircraft on 6 September 2019.
  2. The claimant alleged that he slipped on a patch of grease on the floor of the economy class galley.
  3. The defendant denied the existence of a slippery area and any breach of duty of care.
  4. The claimant had six other workplace injuries between April 2017 and April 2019.
  5. The defendant allowed the claimant’s employment contract to expire without offering him a fresh contract.
  6. The claimant now works as a customer care analyst at Ricoh (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Durairaj Santiran v Singapore Airlines Ltd, Originating Claim No 136 of 2022, [2024] SGHC 249

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Claimant employed by defendant
Claimant injured back
Claimant suffered bruises on left forearm
Claimant hit left thumb on meal cart
Claimant slipped and fell from staircase
Claimant had surgery to fuse C5/C6 vertebrae
Claimant broke left fingernail
Claimant bruised tip of finger
Claimant fell on aircraft
Claimant's employment contract expired
Claimant started work at Ricoh (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
Trial began
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Duty of Care
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant did not breach its duty of care to the claimant.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to provide a safe place of work
      • Failure to provide a safe system of work
  2. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the negligence claim.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury
  • Workplace Injury

11. Industries

  • Aviation

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Sandz Solutions (Singapore) Pte Ltd and others v Strategic Worldwide Assets Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 562SingaporeCited regarding limitations of assessing demeanour in the witness box.
How Weng Fan and others v Sengkang Town Council and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2023] 2 SLR 234SingaporeCited for the purposes of pleadings.
V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithalingam and anotherHigh CourtYes[2015] 5 SLR 1422SingaporeCited for the purposes of pleadings.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology AgencyCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 100SingaporeCited for the elements of a negligence claim and the test for duty of care.
BNJ (suing by her lawful father and litigation representative, B) v SMRT Trains Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2014] 2 SLR 7SingaporeCited for the standard of care and res ipsa loquitur.
Chandran a/l Subbiah v Dockers Marine Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 786SingaporeCited for the standard of care an employer must take for its employees’ personal safety.
Stokes v Guest, Keen and Nettlefold (Bolts and Nuts) LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[1968] 1 WLR 1776England and WalesCited for the standard of care an employer must take for its employees’ personal safety.
Parno v SC Marine Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 377SingaporeCited for the duty to provide employees a proper system of work.
Lu Bang Song v Teambuild Construction Pte Ltd and another and another appealHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 49SingaporeCited regarding imposing an overly onerous duty on an employer.
Awang bin Dollah v Shun Shing Construction & Engineering Co Ltd and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 746SingaporeCited regarding res ipsa loquitur.
Chandler v Cape plcEnglish Court of AppealYes[2012] 1 WLR 3111England and WalesCited regarding duty of care.
Hao Wei (S) Pte Ltd v Rasan SelvanHigh CourtYes[2009] 1 SLR(R) 142SingaporeCited regarding duty of care.
General Cleaning Contractors Ld v ChristmasHouse of LordsYes[1953] AC 180United KingdomCited regarding duty of care.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2668 v Rott George HugoHigh CourtYes[2013] 3 SLR 787SingaporeCited regarding duty of care.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Work Injury Compensation Act 2019Singapore
Evidence Act 1893Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Duty of care
  • Negligence
  • Slippery floor
  • Workplace injury
  • Flight steward
  • Safe system of work
  • Safe place of work
  • Grease patch
  • Cabin crew
  • CCRP
  • SSQH

15.2 Keywords

  • Negligence
  • Duty of care
  • Workplace injury
  • Singapore Airlines
  • Flight steward

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Tort Law
  • Employment Law
  • Negligence
  • Personal Injury