4mil for a pair of legs

[devilplate]

I think those people who own "loan shark" money are more willing to do that. Their family will get compensation and can buy a pte ppty, and rent it out.

Since it is MRT fault, then MRT should take care of the girl till the last day of her life. Just like a responsible man, make the girl pregnant, so must marry her.

All train stations got install barriers at those developed countries?

Let say tree branches drop which belongs to nparks and causing u to paralyse....den can sue 4mil anot?

[irisng]

All train stations got install barriers at those developed countries?

Let say tree branches drop which belongs to nparks and causing u to paralyse....den can sue 4mil anot?

Ya hor, during heavy rain, the trees fell and hit the cars, wonder whether did the npark compensate the owner or not besides the owner's insurance company.

How about Bangkok and KL, does it have the barriers on all the train stations?

Aiya, make me recall about Ah How's case, murder case also can get rich leh, so many donations from the kind soul. Looks like foreigners have more privilege than Singaporeans.

[devilplate]

Shd govt build railings along all public roads, drains, reservoirs etc?

Wait accidents happen again....how? Sg so hot wor, ppl can faint easily leh

[irisng]

Shd govt build railings along all public roads, drains, reservoirs etc?

Wait accidents happen again....how? Sg so hot wor, ppl can faint easily leh

Learn from mistakes. Experience comes from mistakes.

[rattydrama]

All train stations got install barriers at those developed countries?

Let say tree branches drop which belongs to nparks and causing u to paralyse....den can sue 4mil anot?

if npark did keep up with the tree pruning schedule then quite difficult to establish a case......act of god?

[rattydrama]

100mil compensation at least lah!

Come come....all line up to stage a fall!

MRT stations will all close down. no insurance company willing to insur.

[irisng]

Is there any sensors on the MRT tracks to detect any movable or non-movable objects, so that the MRT driver can response earlier?

[howgozit]

It sounds ridiculous to a lot of us Singaporeans because we are generally not a litigious society unlike say USA. We forget what our rights are. Suing establishment is not just about money, its also about making organisations accountable. I would say she has a lot of guts to sue an organisation as big as SMRT.

Whether SMRT is culpable or not and if so, to what degree will be decided by the courts. If there is indeed a flaw in the design or procedures of SMRT, a lawsuit like this may help uncover and rectify the problem. This will help prevent something like this to happen again to ourselves and/or our loved ones.

If SMRT is not at fault than unfortunately the Thai girl will be saddled not just with a huge medical bill but also a huge legal bill.

Remember NKF/SPH.. TT Durai...etc. Most of us are adverse to suing big organisations and once in a while a case like this actually does some good to shake up the system

[howgozit]

Btw, my prediction is an out-of-court settlement.

Remember, the family and their lawyers have already seen the CCTV footage and still think the have a case. Also SMRT who has been holding the tape all this while is keeping mum, in fact the family had to engage a lawyer to just view the tape which they had done so only recently.

[zzz1]

Did she fall down herself or MRT staff pushed her down. Why should the MRT compensate her so much? So if someone fell down on the road or at the park while jogging, should the related authorities be responsible for it because the path is not even and if someone by accident fall from high rise HDB flat, should the HDB responsible for it because corridor wall not tall enough to cover a person height.

In the law of tort, u can sue for these provided u can proved the case of negligence. Eg no warning sign of notice of danger, provide adequate and reasonable protection to user. If path is not even due to non maintenance etc etc

These are very common in the west but not so in sg, the court may throw out the case , especially vs authorities, for the
Fear of floodgate to these litigations.

[devilplate]

In the law of tort, u can sue for these provided u can proved the case of negligence. Eg no warning sign of notice of danger, provide adequate and reasonable protection to user. If path is not even due to non maintenance etc etc

These are very common in the west but not so in sg, the court may throw out the case , especially vs authorities, for the
Fear of floodgate to these litigations.

The thing is.....many developed 1st world countries also nvr install barriers at their train stn

So mabe its passable by international standard for not having barrier?

Any guru in this field?

[devilplate]

It sounds ridiculous to a lot of us Singaporeans because we are generally not a litigious society unlike say USA. We forget what our rights are. Suing establishment is not just about money, its also about making organisations accountable. I would say she has a lot of guts to sue an organisation as big as SMRT.

Whether SMRT is culpable or not and if so, to what degree will be decided by the courts. If there is indeed a flaw in the design or procedures of SMRT, a lawsuit like this may help uncover and rectify the problem. This will help prevent something like this to happen again to ourselves and/or our loved ones.

If SMRT is not at fault than unfortunately the Thai girl will be saddled not just with a huge medical bill but also a huge legal bill.

Remember NKF/SPH.. TT Durai...etc. Most of us are adverse to suing big organisations and once in a while a case like this actually does some good to shake up the system

Hope dun settle out of court wor....

I am vy curious wats going on actually.....

I believe its not due to barrier thingy.....cud be smthing else

[Douk]

There is probably a blood sucking lawyer convinced her to do so..

It sounds ridiculous to a lot of us Singaporeans because we are generally not a litigious society unlike say USA. We forget what our rights are. Suing establishment is not just about money, its also about making organisations accountable. I would say she has a lot of guts to sue an organisation as big as SMRT.

Whether SMRT is culpable or not and if so, to what degree will be decided by the courts. If there is indeed a flaw in the design or procedures of SMRT, a lawsuit like this may help uncover and rectify the problem. This will help prevent something like this to happen again to ourselves and/or our loved ones.

If SMRT is not at fault than unfortunately the Thai girl will be saddled not just with a huge medical bill but also a huge legal bill.

Remember NKF/SPH.. TT Durai...etc. Most of us are adverse to suing big organisations and once in a while a case like this actually does some good to shake up the system

[howgozit]

There is probably a blood sucking lawyer convinced her to do so..

Could be... but this not US where its all or nothing for the lawyers. They only make money when the client wins and they take a sizeable cut from the payout. In Singapore, the lawyer's fee is based on time, resource and expertise used. It is not exactly big money.

[devilplate]

Could be... but this not US where its all or nothing for the lawyers. They only make money when the client wins and they take a sizeable cut from the payout. In Singapore, the lawyer's fee is based on time, resource and expertise used. It is not exactly big money.

No hor....in sg, lawyer charge fees even if they lose but also take a cut if they wins hor

For usa, me duno

[howgozit]

I think those people who own "loan shark" money are more willing to do that. Their family will get compensation and can buy a pte ppty, and rent it out.

Since it is MRT fault, then MRT should take care of the girl till the last day of her life . Just like a responsible man, make the girl pregnant, so must marry her.

I fell down while I was walking at the multi-storey carpark during raining day. Should I claim from the related authority for not constructing the carpark properly and let the rain come in and wet the floor and also the pathway at the carpark flooring is very smooth.

Does anybody remember this?

Some years ago, BCA required all highrise households to change the rivets of casement windows. This was because there were many cases of windows falling out of HDB flats causing killer litter. This was applied to both HDB and private properties, and homeowners had to do it at their own cost.

To ensure compliance, it was made an offence not to have it changed. A dateline was issued and spot checks were done with fines imposed for non compliance.

If the windows regardless of post or pre-mod did fall and hurt/kill anyone, the authorities say it is the homeowners fault. This is even if HDB designed, built and installed the casement windows in your home
.
Now, how can this be so? You the homeowner had no say in the selection of materials in construction, yet you have to bear the responsibilty of the defect and also the cost of its rectification. In the other countries, homeowners will cry foul and protest in the streets, what do we do in Singapore?... we meekly complied (myself included)

If you were walking below a HDB flat one day and a window did fall and maimed you or (heaven forbid) your child... who do you sue? who can you sue?.... or are you just gonna blame it on your bad luck?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrt your slipping in the HDB carpark, what if you slipped and fell towards an oncoming car... and as a result both your legs had to be amputated... how would you feel? Do you think HDB could have provided a safer environment? Was the accident preventable through better design? Or perhaps maybe even HDB has flouted some building rules when they contructed the carpark that caused you to slip.

Would I sue HDB? I certainly would. As for how much, I will let my lawyer make that call.... of course the sum must be justifiable, I doubt $4M is enough. Plus there must be an element of punitive damges to ensure that they do not make the same mistake that can cause other people to suffer the same fate as me.

[howgozit]

No hor....in sg, lawyer charge fees even if they lose but also take a cut if they wins hor

For usa, me duno

Yes that's right, that's exactly what I mean, I think you have either misread or misunderstood my meaning perhaps my writing isn't clear enough.... there is no big money in this type of case, the litigation involved is quite hard work and you are fighting a big company that has the resources to drag it out into a long and expensive fight and a client that probably can't afford your fees.


Btw, below are the excerpts of guidelines from the Singapore Law Soc on lawyer fees

What are Lawyers Entitled to Charge

Lawyers are entitled to receive reasonable fees for work properly done on behalf of their clients.

Non-contentious matters

Under section 108 of the Legal Profession Act (the 'LPA') and the Solicitors' Remuneration Order 2003 ('SRO'), the remuneration of a solicitor for non-contentious matters shall be the sum that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case, in particular:

• the importance of the matter to the client;
• the skill, labour, specialised knowledge and responsibility involved on the part of the solicitor;
• the complexity of the matter and the difficulty or novelty of the question raised;
• where money or property is involved, the amount or value thereof;
• the time expended by the solicitor;
• the number and importance of the documents prepared or perused, without regard to length; and
• the place where, and the circumstances under which, the services or business or any part thereof are rendered or transacted.

In addition, a solicitor may charge more if he or she is required to perform the work by special exertion on an urgent basis.

Alternatively, a solicitor and his client may enter into an agreement for the solicitor's charges for non-contentious work. Such agreements can be challenged in Court on the ground that they are not fair and reasonable.

A solicitor may receive a deposit from the client as security for fees to be charged. A solicitor may also charge interest on his disbursements and costs from the end of one month of the date of his demand for payment.

The agreement may be for:

• payment of an agreed amount irrespective of the volume of work done (a fixed fee);
• a non-refundable retainer (deposit) for work to be undertaken. This deposit will be refunded if the instruction to act is terminated prematurely or if the matter is not proceeded with subsequently; or
• payment on a time-related basis.

[howgozit]

cont'd....


Such agreements can be challenged in Court on the ground that they are not fair and reasonable. The lawyer is, however, prohibited by law to enter into an agreement with you with respect to the legal costs in a contentious matter which provides for payment only in the event of success in the contentious matter.

If there is no agreement as to the legal costs, the lawyer can charge according to the nature and complexity of the matter, the skill, labour and responsibility involved on the part of the lawyer, the experience of the lawyer, the length of time taken to complete the matter, and the number and importance of the documents prepared and perused by the lawyer.

[devilplate]

Dun forget this ger received a considerable sum of donations...

Got money to pay for legal fees

[howgozit]

Dun forget this ger received a considerable sum of donations...

Got money to pay for legal fees

Most law firms take such cases not so much for the money but for the profile. This is a much publicised case.

Only the really passionate lawyers like litigation (those that got their bellies ignited when in moot court while in law school), the rest really just like money more. Yes they still get paid whether they win or lose but most do it pro bono as they know their clients can't afford it.

[irisng]

Does anybody remember this?

Some years ago, BCA required all highrise households to change the rivets of casement windows. This was because there were many cases of windows falling out of HDB flats causing killer litter. This was applied to both HDB and private properties, and homeowners had to do it at their own cost.

To ensure compliance, it was made an offence not to have it changed. A dateline was issued and spot checks were done with fines imposed for non compliance.

If the windows regardless of post or pre-mod did fall and hurt/kill anyone, the authorities say it is the homeowners fault. This is even if HDB designed, built and installed the casement windows in your home
.
Now, how can this be so? You the homeowner had no say in the selection of materials in construction, yet you have to bear the responsibilty of the defect and also the cost of its rectification. In the other countries, homeowners will cry foul and protest in the streets, what do we do in Singapore?... we meekly complied (myself included)

If you were walking below a HDB flat one day and a window did fall and maimed you or (heaven forbid) your child... who do you sue? who can you sue?.... or are you just gonna blame it on your bad luck?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrt your slipping in the HDB carpark, what if you slipped and fell towards an oncoming car... and as a result both your legs had to be amputated... how would you feel? Do you think HDB could have provided a safer environment? Was the accident preventable through better design? Or perhaps maybe even HDB has flouted some building rules when they contructed the carpark that caused you to slip.

Would I sue HDB? I certainly would. As for how much, I will let my lawyer make that call.... of course the sum must be justifiable, I doubt $4M is enough. Plus there must be an element of punitive damges to ensure that they do not make the same mistake that can cause other people to suffer
the same fate as me.

Oh, frankly speaking, when I fell down at that moment, I never think of claiming against govt, aiyoh, I'm so stupid hor . I only blame myself for being unlucky, now my elbows and below portion of the back still aching, no wonder people say when you get older and older, can't afford to fall down already.

Wow, if everybody starts claiming against govt for all sorts of things like trees falling down on people or cars due to heavy downpour, orchard flood, fall down due to uneven floor, man walk unconsciously to the reservoir because reservoir not properly fence up etc etc, then I think our govt will have a big headache . Not easy leh, to be a govt, no wonder their pay are so high. So many children to take care.

Now, Thailand is having a serious flooding, destroys lots of family belongings, that means the residents can also claim against govt for their loss loh because their govt never alert them earlier or do some advance precautions. Alamat!

It will never ends if everything also claims against govt, then one day govt will say "aiyah, give up already lah" . Good for us hor if everything can claim against govt, then we don't need to buy any accident insurance, hehe.

[howgozit]

Oh, frankly speaking, when I fell down at that moment, I never think of claiming against govt, aiyoh, I'm so stupid hor . I only blame myself for being unlucky, now my elbows and below portion of the back still aching, no wonder people say when you get older and older, can't afford to fall down already.

Wow, if everybody starts claiming against govt for all sorts of things like trees falling down on people or cars due to heavy downpour, orchard flood, fall down due to uneven floor, man walk unconsciously to the reservoir because reservoir not properly fence up etc etc, then I think our govt will have a big headache . Not easy leh, to be a govt, no wonder their pay are so high. So many children to take care.

Now, Thailand is having a serious flooding, destroys lots of family belongings, that means the residents can also claim against govt for their loss loh because their govt never alert them earlier or do some advance precautions. Alamat!

It will never ends if everything also claims against govt, then one day govt will say "aiyah, give up already lah" . Good for us hor if everything can claim against govt, then we don't need to buy any accident insurance, hehe.

I think you misunderstand my post.

You decide for yourself whether your situation warrants legal action. Your injuries were minor but what if was serious? What if HDB was indeed in some way delinquent? Would you still blame yourself for being unlucky or just plain clumsy?

You are trivialising the MRT incident with your frivolous examples. While you claim to be old it seems to me your thinking is a bit immature. This not being anti-government or suing for the sake of suing. It must be reasonable and be able to withstand the scrutiny of the judicial system. It takes a lot of courage for common folk to take a big organisation head-on.

Whether $4M is reasonable or not, the courts will decide. If SMRT is in any way culpable, chances are it will be a out of court settlement with the plaintiff signing a non-disclosure clause. Then the settlement will be publicised as a goodwill gesture with minimal details and case closed. It is mostly likely that both lawyers from both sides are in the thick of negotiations right now.

On the other hand, if SMRT manages to prove that it did comply to the required standards to ensure safety for its commuters than the poor Thai girl may be burdened with both legal costs. If you ask me, that's quite a gutsy gamble given her plight .