Sunday, June 19, 2011

Thai Teen vs SMRT for $3.4m

let's sit back and await the outcome
Background
Nitcharee came to Singapore for a holiday and to study English (which is which?). She fell onto the MRT track at Ang Mo Kio (AMK) station. She lost both her legs.

SMRT has offered $5,000 as compensation but was rejected. Nitcharee's family has instead sued SMRT for $3.4m. The basis of arriving at that figure is 20 pairs of prosthetic legs @$150,000 per pair (est.)

Intention
I wish all of us to consider the following. Please note that we do not have access to the details pertaining to the case. The intention here is to encourage us to open our mind as we speculate to consider all possibilities.

Firstly, let's consider whether SMRT is liable for the compensation.

  • Did the train driver follow all operating procedures as it entered into AMK station? 
  • At the correct speed? 
  • Was the driver paying full attention to the track and passengers loitering along the platform as the train rolled into the station? 
  • Did the driver has sufficient time to react when the Thai teen fell onto the track within reasonable man's assumption? Is there a camera on the driver in the driver's compartment? 
  • Is there a "black box" installed on each train (similar to those installed on planes to record data from critical instruments of the plane)? 
  • The details on the station's cameras would also be useful in determining causation.
  • Was the train's equipment and instruments working as per specification (especially the brake)?
  • What is the train driver's background, training records and performance reports to date?
  • Are there supposed to have doors installed in above-ground MRT stations as per Bishan MRT station?

Next, we consider the Thai teen's position.

  • So does the Thai teen has any right to make the claim from SMRT? 
  • Did she faint and fell onto the MRT track as was initially reported? 
  • If she had not fainted, who offered this "faint story" in the first place?
  • SMRT would ask for her complete medical history. Assuming that she has a pre-existing medical condition that might give her occasional fainting spells, should she be travelling and travelling alone?
  • If she did not faint and fell onto the track, then how and why is she on the track? 
  • Was she accidentally bump onto the track by another passenger in a rush on a crowded platform? 
  • Did she slip given the quality of her shoes?
  • Was she carrying anything heavy? 
  • Did she trip on a crack on the platform?
  • Was she in an emotional stress before the incident? Did she wanted to hurt herself given her emotional state at that point in time?
  • Does she know how to use the MRT? 
  • How long was she in Singapore before the incident happened?
  • Or perhaps, is it just an accident? And thus this is an attempt to look for someone who is a big corporate and can definitely afford to pay for some relief for the pain suffered and to allow the girl to lead as normal a life as possible with prosthetic legs?
  • Or is the legal suit an attempt by the teen's family to find out the truth? The suit would compel SMRT to release all pertinent information.

I could go on and on.. I hope I have demonstrated that one should NOT jump at any conclusion as to who is right or wrong. Let's all await for more information.

No comments: