Tort Law: Workplace Safety and Health Regulations in Singapore

This article discusses the Workplace, Health and Safety Act, 2006 and its regulations for maintaining a hazard-free and healthy work environment in Singapore. It covers the employer's duty of care, risk assessment, and liability in case of workplace hazards. The article also explains the egg-shell rule and the elements of negligence with relevant case studies.

Running Head: TORT LAW
Tort Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1TORT LAW
1(a) The Workplace, Health and Safety Act, 2006 is a law that regulates the safety and healthy
working environment of workplaces in Singapore (Phillips et al., 2015). Employers need to take
effective steps to maintain a hazard free and healthy work environment. Risk can be eliminated
by checking the plants, instruments and equipments which are used on a daily basis, creating
awareness in the workplace, maintaining safe working facilities. Risk can be managed by
identifying the risks that are prevalent or are foreseeable. The owners need to ensure that healthy
habits are cultivated in the workplace (Hofman, Burke & Zohar, 2017). Safety measures should
be undertaken by everyone, irrespective of their position. Every person at workplace shall be
made to take reasonable steps to make sure no hazardous activities take place. Risk can be
managed by promoting health awareness and also penalizing the culprits who do not encourage
safety and healthy working (Reese, 2015). Safety at workplace is a basic right which is
mandatory for the owners to ensure. If any hazard takes place in any working environment that
harms or injures an employee, the owners or the stakeholders shall be made liable. The owners of
a factory or a workplace owe a duty of care towards their employee and their safe working.
Safety at work place is a universal concept which has to be ensured at every working
environment.
1(b) The Employer or the Stakeholder is the owner under The Workplace, Health and Safety Act,
2006. To conduct risk, there has to be a robust functioning team to assess the risk. The Risk
Assessment Team will ascertain specific risk areas and try to redress the same (Kvorning, Hasle
& Christensen, 2015). The Risk Assessment Team will comprise of the Team Manager and a few
members under him. The team will have contractors, suppliers, and also have representations
from both managerial and non-managerial levels. The team shall identify all the risks attached
with the workplace and shall identify the units that have chances of causing hazard at the

2TORT LAW
workplace. Therefore to conduct risk assessment, a proper understanding and knowledge of the
workplace is mandatory. Every department, work area has to be properly checked to ensure that
there is no scope of risk. The risk assessment team has to be in constant touch with the
employees to know if any department is at a risk.
1(c)
Hazards Identified Who might be
harmed and how?
What are they
already doing?
What further
action(s) is/are
necessary?
Action by who?
Falls from height The employers
working on water
tanks on the
terrace without any
proper head gear
will suffer head
injury.
The RA Team
does not give new
head gears and
does not provide
metal slings to
climb.
Proper head gear
has to be arranged
and there is a need
for an ambulance
to take the injured
to the hospital
immediately.
The suppliers and
contractors have to
provide sturdy
head gears and
metal slings.
Slips, trips and
falls
The employers
working on
construction of
marble floors.
The RA team has
made anti-skid
floors which are
not fully
functional.
Strictly ensure
water damage
clean up services
and water
restoration
services.
The sewage team
has to be contacted
who need to clean
the residual water
and make sure
there is no water
blockage.
Falling objects Ceiling fell on The team is Qualified Suppliers of raw

3TORT LAW
employees who
were working on
the ground floor.
looking at the
construction and
ensuring no cheap
and poor
construction
material has been
used.
engineers and
contractors need to
be hired who are
equipped to
construct long
lasting buildings
which are not
prone to collapse.
materials have to
be properly hired
who are
responsible for
providing
substances for
construction.
Answer 2(a)
Egg-shell rule applies in cases when the defendant could not have foreseen the
damage caused by his action. In the present case, there was an unintentional damage which is
used for the test of reasonable foresee ability (Gilber & Gilbert, 2017). This tries to help the
defendants in cases of damage that arises due to any fault of the defendant. In this case, a video
was sent to Nancy’s mother wherein she believed that her daughter has drowned and died. In this
case, there was no duty of care owed to Nancy’s mother and she suffered psychiatric injury as a
result of her inability to take the news. Balu did not have any duty of care towards Nancy’s
mother and he could not foresee that the video could trigger such an emotion in her mother that
she would suffer psychiatric injury. The egg shell rule applies in this case which is the primary
case in situations when the defendant cannot reasonably foresee any damage. Therefore no duty
of care can be established in this case and therefore he cannot be held liable.

4TORT LAW
Answer 2 (b)
Kelvin is in charge of a canoe team in Dave School. The School plans to take
students on a canoe trip and on the way suffer serious accident. Negligence is defined as the
breach of a legal duty to take care (Goldberg, Sebok & Zipursky, 2016). To prove a case of
breach of legal duty, is it important to understand whether there existed a duty of care. There are
three elements to establish negligence: There exists a duty of care and there has been a breach of
that duty resulting in damage which is not too remote (Wright, 2017). Novus actus interveniens
breaks the chain of causation in cases where the defendant wants to absolve himself of all his
liabilities. Novus actus interveniens could be any act that has broken the chain of causation like
Act of God (Avraham, 2014). In the present case, the practice was done on a rainy day hence, the
accident could be foreseen by a man of prudence. Kelvin knew it was a rainy day hence there
were maximum chances of an accident, therefore, Kelvin is liable for negligence. Kelvin owed a
duty of care to his students and he has breached his duty of care. Dave School being the
employer is vicariously liable for the acts of his employers, that is, Kelvin because he is the
teacher.

5TORT LAW
Reference
Avraham, R. (2014). Database of state tort law reforms (5th).
Gilbert, R. J., & Gilbert, P. T. (2017). Maryland Tort Law Handbook. LexisNexis.
Goldberg, J. C., Sebok, A. J., & Zipursky, B. C. (2016). Tort Law: Responsibilities and Redress.
Wolters Kluwer law & business.
Hofmann, D. A., Burke, M. J., & Zohar, D. (2017). 100 years of occupational safety research:
From basic protections and work analysis to a multilevel view of workplace safety and
risk. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 375.
Kvorning, L. V., Hasle, P., & Christensen, U. (2015). Motivational factors influencing small
construction and auto repair enterprises to participate in occupational health and safety
programmes. Safety science, 71, 253-263.
Phillips, J. A., Holland, M. G., Baldwin, D. D., Gifford-Meuleveld, L., Mueller, K. L., Perkison,
B., ... & Dreger, M. (2015). Marijuana in the workplace: Guidance for occupational
health professionals and employers: Joint guidance statement of the American
Association of Occupational Health Nurses and the American College of Occupational
and Environmental Medicine. Workplace health & safety, 63(4), 139-164.
Reese, C. D. (2015). Occupational health and safety management: a practical approach. CRC
press.
Wright, J. (2017). Tort law and human rights. Bloomsbury Publishing.