Court Stops Frivolous Suit By Dead NSF's Family To Extract More Money From SAF!

[eatshitndie]

$60,000 is an insult to a NS Boy who has died in the service of his country. The fucking PAP let in FTs students his age with free scholarships to unis and secondary/pre-u schools that are worth more then that. as well, able bodied young FTs becoming SPRs can buy and make money from HDB flats without having to serve NS, and that is also worth more than $60K in their pockets. Truly traitorous PAP.

agree. it should be $69,696 to be in the sinkie spirit of soixante-neuf.

 

[bic_cherry]

Any kind lawyer out there..???

Can petition to have this error redress..??

Surley the chief Justice duty is to uphold the law and made redress..otherwise the meaning of credibility and integrity is meaningless..

Time to make Shamunggam to work hard as he is the law minister...to uphold his integrity and the judicial system.

The law referenced in state media I have appended as a/m. Unless lawyer is able to ask Chief Justice (CJ) to strike out the law (Ch121, Sec14) for being unconstitutional etc, CJ is OBLIGED to obey/ follow the law.

It is job of parliament to create laws and Singaporeans desire like 80-90% of parliament to be choked up with PAP sock-puppets... So end up, CJ hands are also tied...

CJ is appointed by President on advice of parliament IIRC, all of whom wear rose tinted glasses of PAP design.

 

[Papsmearer]

You could imagine the pain and hurt the parents have to go through.
Trusting the Government to ensure the safety of their son during National Service
only to realized that the Government breached their trust but only treat their son
like some cheap human being whose life is only worth a derisory sum of S$60K.

Even when the SAF is guilty of safety breach, the Government denies them to right to sue the SAF for negligence. If the deceased were to be one of the Minister's son, I am sure heads are going to roll in the SAF.

Never trust the PAP Government with your son's life and never vote for them ever.

The deceased will never be a Minister's son. Those are super White Horse. They will never get themselves dirty on the ground breathing in smoke grenade fumes. They are more likely like Patrick Tan.

 

[Papsmearer]

Typical SAF to make a simple thing like compensation so fucking complicated. what is this formula of lump sum equal to 12 month of the last drawn monthly gross salary of a regular of equivalent rank shit? Plus there is some special award for what?

SAF should simply buy a $250,000 (or more) life insurance policy for all NSmen as well as a policy that pays for disability benefits in the even of injury. They should pay the premiums for the NSmen until he RODs. What is so difficult about that?

 

[Papsmearer]

thanks bro. that is why i m here in this forum. lucky me you didnt ask for evidence! hahaha. just kidding.

this case was discussed in parliament when a teenager was caned additional strokes for ah long offences i think.

the great jayajumar, then law and home affairs minister was right. he said a prisoner can be caned more than 24 strokes. i fully agree. why?
because when he is serving time for several offences he gets 24 strokes. after his release, commit more crimes. sentenced again n 24 strokes. possible. happened to many. but more than 24 at one go? that is wrong.

why it took place? the 4 faced several charges. For instance, one of them had 4 charges and sentenced to x number of months and x number of strokes. but 2 of the sentences were concurrent not consecutive. whatever the confusion, the district judge should know better than to instruct supt of prison to carry out all 48 and 36 strokes at one go. silly supt of prison should have alerted his director of prison but he failed.

wrong was done. cant turn back the clock. i understand. but why compensate the guy whose family could afford a lawyer and not other 3?

is this the govt our 70% want? penalise the poor? whatever wrong the other 3 committed, they were already punished.

I think the law is you cannot cane until 24 times lah. A doctor has to be present at the caning. If culprit pass out from the caning and or is physically unable to continue due to endangerment of his life, the Dr. will stop. All remaining lashes are then waived. i.e. cannot continue on a later date.

 

[frenchbriefs]

i wonder how is SAF ever going to deploy our army to war,if they are unwilling to pay for the soldier's death or injury during battle.13 billion dollar spend a year but none on soldier's death.lets face it they are willing 934 million on plane upgrades when somebody benefits from it,but soldiers dieing is a nuisance and liability.anybody interested in fighting and dieing for el cheapo army?

 

[Onitsuka]

Despite having found breaching safety regulations, the Singapore High Court ruled that the family of the deceased National Serviceman (NSF), Private Dominique Sarron Lee, will not be allowed to sue the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) for negligence.

On 17 April, 2012, Pte. Dominque Lee collapsed after suffering breathing difficulties from the six smoke grenades used in the exercise. A Committee of Inquiry (COI) in 2012 delivered their judgment confirming that the SAF breached safety regulations because only a maximum of two smoke grenades were allowed to be used in the exercise. A state coroner’s inquiry in Aug 2013 later confirmed that Pte. Dominque died from inhaling the smoke in the smoke grenades.

Judicial Commissioner Kannan Ramesh dismissed the family’s argument that there was a contract between SAF and Pte Lee and so, his family was entitled to claim damages from SAF for breaching its contractual duty to ensure the highest standards of training safety.

According to a statement by the Ministry of Defence (Mindef), the family of the deceased serviceman received a lump sum death gratuity, equivalent to 12 months of the last drawn monthly gross salary of a regular of equivalent rank. A regular with a private rank is estimated to earn around S$2,000 a month. Although undisclosed, the compensation for Dominique’s death the family got is estimated to be around S$60,000 after factoring a “special award” which doubles the compensation amount in the event the death happened during training.

Frankly, I don't understand this report.

There are 2 different claims being reported - negligence which is an action in tort vs a claim under contract.

Aren't these 2 different animals altogether ? How does failure to establish a contractual relationship deny a claim under tort ? All it takes for a claim in negligence to succeed is for the plaintiff (victim) to establish a "duty of care" between the boy and MINDEF, and that MINDEF had, in all likelihood, breached the duty of care.

If I placed a flower pot on my HDB parapet and it fell off and hit a passerby, I would surely be liable for negligence despite not having any contractual relationship with the passerby. The fact that MINDEF used 6 grenades instead of the maximum two allowed suggests MINDEF has breached its duty of care. You don't even need "the man in the clapham omni bus" to say if it's reasonable or not. There were guidelines prescribed by MINDEF and they breached their own standing orders.

Or did Mindef make the poor parents sign some "disclaimer or agreement not to sue" before releasing the compensation monies to them ?

 

[Papsmearer]

Frankly, I don't understand this report.

There are 2 different claims being reported - negligence which is an action in tort vs a claim under contract.

Aren't these 2 different animals altogether ? How does failure to establish a contractual relationship deny a claim under tort ? All it takes for a claim in negligence to succeed is for the plaintiff (victim) to establish a "duty of care" between the boy and MINDEF, and that MINDEF had, in all likelihood, breached the duty of care.

If I placed a flower pot on my HDB parapet and it fell off and hit a passerby, I would surely be liable for negligence despite not having any contractual relationship with the passerby. The fact that MINDEF used 6 grenades instead of the maximum two allowed suggests MINDEF has breached its duty of care. You don't even need "the man in the clapham omni bus" to say if it's reasonable or not. There were guidelines prescribed by MINDEF and they breached their own standing orders.

Or did Mindef make the poor parents sign some "disclaimer or agreement not to sue" before releasing the compensation monies to them ?

For sure SAF was negligent. The instructors during this training exercise should and might have been court martialed already. They will find a scapegoat for this. The medics and any related medical staff on duty should also have been court martialed unless they are a scholar Dr. or some one like that. They should have had an epi pen for this guy if he was allergic to the smoke. if he had a collapsed lung, they could have re-inflated it in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. This is not the first smoke inhalation case from smoke grenades. I think this was a preventable death. When I was in the SAF, there was a case in Brunei too, in Temburong. The Officer cadet inhaled too much smoke from the grenade, and ended up with a collapsed lung during uncontrolled topo. He had to be evacuated out to the nearest road by his 3 comrades. that was a heck of an ordeal for them too.

 

[Papsmearer]

Ruling in the case of a full-time national serviceman who died in 2012 after an allergic reaction to smoke grenades during a military exercise, the High Court yesterday (March 3) struck out a lawsuit brought against the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF).

Besides the SAF, the family of Private Dominique Sarron Lee had also sued his platoon commander as well as the chief safety officer of the exercise, alleging negligence on their part.

Arguing that there is no reasonable cause of action and that the suit is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process, all three defendants applied to strike out the claims of the family.

Judicial Commissioner Kannan Remesh who heard the case, agreed that the defendants are indemnified from being sued for negligence for deaths and injuries if the acts are certified to be attributable to service.

The judge disagreed with the plaintiff’s argument that the dead soldiers family was entitled to claim damages from SAF for breaching its contractual duty to ensure the highest standards of training safety as there was a contract between SAF and Pte Lee.

The Judicial Commissioner further ruled that the family of the dead soldier had to pay the legal costs of the defendants.

Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen in a Ministerial speech in Parliament in 2012 agreed that safety breaches led to deaths of Pte Lee. He died of an allergic reaction in a training exercise after a platoon commander threw six smoke grenades, even though regulations specified no more than two grenades were to have been used.

The Minister revealed that the cause of death was certified by the forensic pathologist of the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) to be due to an “acute allergic reaction to zinc chloride due to inhalation of zinc chloride fumes”, and that the Committees Of Inquiry believed that “if the Training Safety Regulations had been complied with, PTE Lee and his platoon mates would not have been subjected to smoke that was as dense as that during the incident”.

The mother of Pte Lee has expressed her disappointment with the Court ruling in a Facebook page dedicated to the memory of the soldier. She wrote:

“My dearest Dom, my heart continues to bleed for you. It has been 3 years and 10 months since you were taken from me and still, I haven’t been able to get any closure.

Today, Honourable Judicial Commissioner Kannan Remesh ruled that I have no case against those responsible for your death – the SAF and the 2 officers who did not follow the training exercise SOP. He also ruled that I have to pay for their legal costs.

Dom, how can I possibly pay them for taking away your life? Where is the justice? It seems, the price I paid has not been enough. Your death has not been high enough a price for SAF and the 2 officers, and now, not enough for Honourable Remesh, it seems.

They must be right, of course – the judge, the ministers, the SAF and their officers. They are experts in their fields. Individuals who studied and trained for years to be in their current positions.

What do I know? I’m only a mother to two sons. I only know to love my sons, to nurture them to become young men who will do right by others, to live with dignity, decency and human compassion. What do I know? They are the experts in their fields. They must know best. They do no wrong.

Dom, in these past 3+ years, I have been worn-down, beaten and defeated by the very government I taught you to trust; worn-down, beaten and defeated by the very system I counseled you to have faith in; worn-down, beaten and defeated by the very people I advised you to respect and honor.

Dom, forgive me. I taught you wrong.”

 

[Onitsuka]

Judicial Commissioner Kannan Remesh who heard the case, agreed that the defendants are indemnified from being sued for negligence for deaths and injuries if the acts are certified to be attributable to service.

Again, it's difficult to understand the ratio decidendi - "if the acts are certified to be attributable to service". Well, if the acts were not attributable to service, the defendants would be facing murder and manslaughter charges, not a civil suit.

If the regulations say "2 smoke grenades" that certainly is an act attributable to service". But 6 smoke grenades enough to kill a human being, each of the extra 4 is definitely not attributable to service.

The only basis that MINDEF could not have been (vicariously) liable for the act of the platoon commander would be to assert that latter was on "a frolic of his own", since he breached the regulations by more than 200%. Then again, if MINDEF was not vicariously liable for the act of the platoon commander, then obviously the platoon commander himself would be liable.

You simply can't have a case where all 3 defendants are NOT liable. It's an affront to common sense, and to add salt to wound, the parents of the victim are being made to pay for the defendants' legal costs. So what is left of the $60,000 compensation ?

 

[bigboss]

... If the deceased were to be one of the Minister's son, I am sure heads are going to roll in the SAF.

Never trust the PAP Government with your son's life and never vote for them ever.

The deceased's mother put it aptly as reported in the media:

"Dom, in these past 3+ years, I have been worn-down, beaten and defeated by the very government I taught you to trust; worn-down, beaten and defeated by the very system I counselled you to have faith in; worn-down, beaten and defeated by the very people I advised you to respect and honor."

To those 70% who voted pappies to run an uncaring Govt, you better hope you or your family members do not encounter similar incident in your life time while supporting the pappies.

 

[steffychun]

Despite having found breaching safety regulations, the Singapore High Court ruled that the family of the deceased National Serviceman (NSF), Private Dominique Sarron Lee, will not be allowed to sue the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) for negligence.

On 17 April, 2012, Pte. Dominque Lee collapsed after suffering breathing difficulties from the six smoke grenades used in the exercise. A Committee of Inquiry (COI) in 2012 delivered their judgment confirming that the SAF breached safety regulations because only a maximum of two smoke grenades were allowed to be used in the exercise. A state coroner’s inquiry in Aug 2013 later confirmed that Pte. Dominque died from inhaling the smoke in the smoke grenades.

Judicial Commissioner Kannan Ramesh dismissed the family’s argument that there was a contract between SAF and Pte Lee and so, his family was entitled to claim damages from SAF for breaching its contractual duty to ensure the highest standards of training safety.

According to a statement by the Ministry of Defence (Mindef), the family of the deceased serviceman received a lump sum death gratuity, equivalent to 12 months of the last drawn monthly gross salary of a regular of equivalent rank. A regular with a private rank is estimated to earn around S$2,000 a month. Although undisclosed, the compensation for Dominique’s death the family got is estimated to be around S$60,000 after factoring a “special award” which doubles the compensation amount in the event the death happened during training.

http://statestimesreview.com/2016/0...not-allowed-to-sue-saf-despite-safety-breach/

replace him with a PRC FT!

 

[bigboss]

...then obviously the platoon commander himself would be liable.

You simply can't have a case where all 3 defendants are NOT liable.

To hold either one of the military men liable for the death through a negligent act, then the law of vicarious liability would kick in since all of them are "employees" or "agents" of SAF. It is understandable why none of them is held responsible for the death of the recruit.

 

[Onitsuka]

To hold either one of the military men liable for the death through a negligent act, then the law of vicarious liability would kick in since all of them are "employees" or "agents" of SAF. It is understandable why none of them is held responsible for the death of the recruit.

Not if they (the employees) are adjudged to have been "on a frolic of their own", and that would bring the acts "outside" the course of employment.

 

[shittypore]

Poor chap died while trainig and serving Sinkiepoor, even WORKERS PARTY memain silent on tis issue! 17k per mth x 4yrs, not a word on NS death and Benji

 

[bigboss]

..Or did Mindef make the poor parents sign some "disclaimer or agreement not to sue" before releasing the compensation monies to them ?

Any disclaimer agreement signed by the deceased's parents under duress, misrepresentation, promise or threat is not enforceable and if indeed, it was signed, the parents should have brought it to the attention of the judge.

 

[Onitsuka]

Poor chap died while trainig and serving Sinkiepoor, even WORKERS PARTY memain silent on tis issue! 17k per mth x 4yrs, not a word on NS death and Benji

WP is not without merit, please. They did bring up in Parliament the all-important issue of free parking lots for teachers in schools, even if, as we all know, most civil servants must have voted for the incumbents. So it's a very impartial act on WP to serve the interest of a group of voters who may not have voted for them.

Free parking lots is an important issue.

 

[sleaguepunter]

I find it very hard to pity the mom since she the one who taught her son to respect the govt aka system.

maybe because women folks never served NS so they never know how SAF SOP work. while I wont purposely find ways to get my son to siam NS but I will tell him the different between the right ways, the wrong ways and the SAF ways to survive NS in one piece. The most important aspect of NS is self preservation. I rather get charged than do something dangerous that was ordered by superior. Men of my unit were known to refuse orders given by arsehole officers and my platoon mates and me also ignore PC orders in the field that we consider unreasonable.

 

[NanoSpeed]

I find it very hard to pity the mom since she the one who taught her son to respect the govt aka system.

maybe because women folks never served NS so they never know how SAF SOP work. while I wont purposely find ways to get my son to siam NS but I will tell him the different between the right ways, the wrong ways and the SAF ways to survive NS in one piece. The most important aspect of NS is self preservation. I rather get charged than do something dangerous that was ordered by superior. Men of my unit were known to refuse orders given by arsehole officers and my platoon mates and me also ignore PC orders in the field that we consider unreasonable.

She voted for PAP.

 

[Papsmearer]

Again, it's difficult to understand the ratio decidendi - "if the acts are certified to be attributable to service". Well, if the acts were not attributable to service, the defendants would be facing murder and manslaughter charges, not a civil suit.

If the regulations say "2 smoke grenades" that certainly is an act attributable to service". But 6 smoke grenades enough to kill a human being, each of the extra 4 is definitely not attributable to service.

The only basis that MINDEF could not have been (vicariously) liable for the act of the platoon commander would be to assert that latter was on "a frolic of his own", since he breached the regulations by more than 200%. Then again, if MINDEF was not vicariously liable for the act of the platoon commander, then obviously the platoon commander himself would be liable.

You simply can't have a case where all 3 defendants are NOT liable. It's an affront to common sense, and to add salt to wound, the parents of the victim are being made to pay for the defendants' legal costs. So what is left of the $60,000 compensation ?

basically, the same law that applies to civil servants, police, etc is not said to also apply to the SAF. i.e. you cannot sue a civil servant, if you are suing, you sue the govt. But they put it into law that the SAF and its members cannot be prosecuted for negligence causing death or injury. I can tell you there are many more cases then this one, buried in the court martial system.