E-scooter rider sues condo developer after accident | The New Paper
Singapore

E-scooter rider sues condo developer after accident

This article is more than 12 months old

An injured e-scooter rider's legal suit against a condominium developer could lead to the introduction of a regime of rules for the use of such mobility devices in condominiums.

In the High Court case, Briton John Curtis, who lived in The Glyndebourne in Trevose Crescent at the time, is suing its developer for negligence after the e-scooter he rode on Jan 31, 2015, hit an allegedly unmarked raised portion of the floor of the basement carpark.

The incident happened at about 6.30pm.

Copthorne Orchid Hotel Singapore, in rejecting the claims, alleges that Mr Curtis, then 51, was having a thrill-seeking joyride on the e-scooter with his infant son, oblivious to the surroundings.

A High Court pre-trial conference was held yesterday.

Mr Curtis, a senior insurance executive, was flung off the scooter and fell, suffering a mild head injury and cervical spine fracture. He was hospitalised for a week and given three months of medical leave.

He left Singapore in May 2016 and now works from Jakarta.

In his court claims, filed by his lawyers Chan Jun Kitt and Charles Phua, he alleges negligence and breach of statutory duties by the developer and seeks damages for pain and suffering, medical costs and loss of earnings.

High Court civil claims involve more than $250,000, but the actual quantum payable by the defendant is assessed by the court after liability, if any, is settled.

Mr Curtis alleges that the developer failed to ensure that the design of the premises, including that part of the floor of the basement carpark, was safe.

INADEQUATE

He also claims there were inadequate measures to prevent foreseeable risk of the accident and failure to place safety measures to draw his attention to the raised part of the floor.

He says Copthorne breached its duty of care and failed to stop him from operating the scooter on the premises.

Copthorne, defended by lawyer Ramasamy Chettiar, has countered that the raised concrete kerb surrounded a particular carpark space on two sides.

It was meant to be a car washing bay and the carpark was well lit, complying with brightness requirements.

The kerb for the washing bay was intended to stop the flow of water to the adjoining parking spaces.

It also points out that the authorities had approved the basement carpark and that both the flooring and kerb were painted olive grey.

Copthorne also alleges that Mr Curtis was seen weaving in and out of vacant parking spaces at a high speed.

In so doing, he hit the kerb, causing him and his infant son to be thrown off the e-scooter.

Copthorne also says it will rely on closed-circuit television evidence to support its case.

Lawyer Raphael Louis said the suit is unlike past and current civil suits relating to collisions involving e-scooters and pedestrians.

He said the case may suggest that condo layout designs in future should factor in the use of personal mobility devices, including e-scooters, and update rules in the condo by-laws.

COURT & CRIME