The plaintiff sued the defendants for damages arising out of an accident in a sawmill. In his statement of claim the plaintiff alleged that he was an employee of the defendants and that in the course of his work he was following a cart from which logs were thrown on the conveyor belt. He was following the cart when a log so thrown caught his right foot when the cart moved and he was dragged for five or six feet whereby he suffered severe injuries to his right foot. He alleged that the accident was caused as a result of the negligence of the defendants for not taking reasonable care to provide or maintain a safe and proper system of work and/or effective supervision.

In their statement of defence the defendants denied that the injury was caused by their negligence and stated that it was caused solely or contributed to by the plaintiff's own negligence.

In his evidence the plaintiff said that on the day in question he was working with two others in the sawmill. He was on a cart loaded with logs and was working with another person. The third person was nearer the electric saw and this person controlled the movement of the cart as well as the electric saw. The plaintiff said that while he was working on the cart that day the electric saw and the cart stopped. He noticed that a piece of cut wood was not in its alignment in the cart and as he was putting the wood in its proper place the person who was controlling the electric saw and the cart suddenly switched on the movement of the saw and the cart and as a result he lost his balance and his leg fell into a gap and he was dragged a few feet. He said that there were no safety rails on which he could hold on. After this accident the sawmill did not use this cart any more. It was bought by the defendants as a second-hand cart and had been in use for about two weeks before the accident. Someone in the factory had briefed them on the use of the cart but there were no proper instructions. He said that when he was putting the plank in its proper place the person controlling the machine was not facing him but was facing the other way towards the electric saw.

In cross-examination the plaintiff said that the cart was propelled by an electric motor and was controlled by the person who was controlling the electric saw. The cart moved backwards and forwards during the work and the mode of operation in a newer cart was also the same except that in the newer cart the man controlling the cart would face the man who worked on the car. He reiterated that there was no place on the cart for him to catch hold of when he lost his balance at the sudden movement of the cart. He was using both his hands to place the log in its proper place. He denied that the accident occurred because of his own negligence.

The second witness for the plaintiff (PW2) more or less corroborated the evidence of the plaintiff. He himself was on the ground while the plaintiff was on the cart and the plaintiff tried to adjust two timber logs which were out of alignment. The cart was then stationary and when the plaintiff was adjusting the logs the cart moved and the plaintiff fell off. PW2 then shouted out to the third man Cheong Fatt who was operating the machinery but by that time the plaintiff had moved 4–5 feet. He said that the person who operated the machinery was facing the saw and not the cart. There were no safety rails on the cart on which a person working on the cart could hold on.

The evidence on behalf of the defendants was brief. They said that the plaintiff was working on a contract basis and they were therefore not liable to the plaintiff. Not much was said by the defence to refute the allegations of the plaintiff that he was injured because of the negligence of the defendants in not providing a safe system of work. There was however no averment in the statement of defence that the plaintiff was an independent contractor.

At the conclusion of the hearing Dato' Wong Seng Chow for the plaintiff applie