The plaintiff failed to establish the defendants' negligence or breach of contract regarding the bridge collapse, leading to dismissal of claims and acceptance of counterclaims.

JUDGMENT

Lee Swee Seng J:

[1] The part of a pedestrian bridge linking KL Eco City to Mid Valley across the Klang river collapsed at about 3.20pm on 30 November 2016 when it was being constructed. The collapse was catastrophic with casualties; it caused one fatality and 2 others lost their limbs with 1 still unaccounted for as in still missing.

[2] The part that collapsed ("the bridge") is more particularly the link called LB1 which links the Mid Valley end sitting on POD 2 to POD 1 facing the KL Eco City. LB2 is another curve bridge connecting POD 1 to a Retail Hub and LB3 is a straight bridge that connects the Retail Hub to the KL Eco City end.

[3] The question that has to be answered is who caused the collapse of the curve pedestrian bridge.

Parties

[4] The plaintiff is the developer/owner of a mixed development project in joint venture with Datuk Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur ("DBKL"). It said the fault is that of the first defendant ("D1") Tuck Sin Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd ("Tuck Sin") who is the contractor for the bridge appointed under the PAM Conditions of Contract with Amendments and the second defendant ("D2") Hercules Engineering (SEA) Sdn Bhd ("Hercules") who designed and fabricated the bearings based on the design layout plans and load and movement specifications (Bearing Specifications) as provided by the plaintiff's civil and structural engineer for the bridge, TY Lin International Sdn Bhd ("TYL").

[5] D2 was appointed by D1 for the design, fabrication and delivery of the bearings and there is no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and D2. D1 and D2 when referred to collectively shall be referred to as the "defendants".

Project

[6] There are bridges and there are bridges with massive ones connecting an island to a mainland like the two Penang Bridges and even iconic bridges like the San Francisco Bridge.

[7] What we have here is a pedestrian bridge of a more modest scale and a curve one at that for apparently that which is curved is more appealing to the eyes where aesthetic appreciation is concerned.

[8] It is not that it cannot be straight but that would be too boring! The replacement bridge to replace the collapsed bridge was just simply a straight bridge; underscoring what is true in life that when one does not have time the straight path is the fastest and safest. After all the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line. No time for beauty and just go straight for utility!

[9] Indeed, the whole of this dispute, looking back, had been around the issue as to whether all the parties had appreciated the forces at work with respect to a curve bridge and the movement of the bridge when it expanded coupled with the challenge of allowing it to slide without losing its equilibrium.

[10] To have an idea of the curvature, lengthwise the bridge is 63m along the centerline with an approximate radius of 81.5m spanning between POD1 and POD2.

[11] Design-wise, the bridge structure is a steel frame truss supported by two mechanical bearings at each end. The overall structural height is 4m, with a width of 5.6m. The main truss of the inner radius is 61.3m long and the main truss of the outer radius is 64.8m long.

[12] There is a certain propensity of a curve bridge which does not beset a straight bridge - the propensity to overturn! It is common ground that:

(1) B3 and B4 resist uplift on the inner side of the curve.

(2) B1 and B2 are purely in compression on the outer side of the curve.

[13] The layout of the bridge is as follows:

[14] It is not disputed that TYL is the designer of the Bridge; referring to the whole Bridge Project linking LB1, LB2 and LB3. D1 said that it is a build-only contractor with no design responsibility over the Bridge.

[15] The plaintiff on the other hand submitted that D1 has the responsibility to build the Bridge in accordance with the design layout plans and load and movement specifications (Bearing Specifications) as provided by the plaintiff.

[16] The plaintiff said it was for D1 to decide