Peh Swee Chin SCJ:

The High Court has earlier at the first instance given judgment against the defendant by allowing the claim of plaintiff against the defendant and dismissing the defendant's claim against the third party. On appeal to us against the said judgment, we have allowed the appeal of the defendant to the extent that the judgment and costs given by the High Court in favour of the plaintiff be confirmed but that the judgment and costs given by the High Court in favour of the third party be reversed by entering judgment with costs in favour of the defendant against the third party instead. We indicated we would give our reasons in writing and we now hereby do so.

This case concerns one of those lift accidents, which have been on the increase with usually serious injuries to persons involved, brought about by a very notable change of lifestyle caused by shortage of town land, and hefty increase of urban population leading to mushrooming of construction of high-rise blocks of flats and similar structures incorporating lifts for the use of such flat-dwellers.

The facts could be summarized as follows.

At about 6.00 a.m. on 29 April 1980, the plaintiff, a taxi drive