Sunday, June 19, 2011

Thai Girl should get compensated

Thai Girl vs SMRT (2011)


I've read some of the comments from readers on the Thai family suing SMRT. Some are pretty amusing. Just from reading the comments, you can tell who has knowledge of the law, and who are arguing based on their common sense.

So the question really is if SMRT was negligible?

I think so. It's SMRT's property so it's their duty to keep their passengers safe.

Of course, the girl's actions have to be taken into account as well - I'm guessing no one in the right mind will jump onto a track. Well, the video evidence will come in handy.

SMRT has been slow to install those platform gates. I've always been wondering about past suicide cases of people who flung themselves onto the track. SMRT could have installed those gates to make it difficult for people to jump onto the track. It's not as if they don't have the money.

After many years, they finally started putting up the gates, but it seems that they didn't do so at Ang Mo Kio station.

The principle of law is to restore value - to restore the victim into the condition he/she was previously in. If there's one thing I can remember about law - back when I was studying business law in NTU as a course - it's about the very basic principle of law.

SMRT only offered $5000.

The family is only suing for damages amounting to the replacement limbs. They would have sued for real legs if they could.

I think the case will be settled out of court for an undisclosed sum of money.

No comments:

Post a Comment