JS V Neptune:
JS V Neptune:
Claim under contract - we want to claim our 300K
CLAIM FOR INJURY
Clause 6.2: Company shall compensate the Employee if the Employee is injured in the course of his employment by the negligence of another.
Was KD negligent in operating the drone?
Did KD act within the scope of the employer?
Prove that KD was negligent even though he had a mental condition, relying on Randall v Dunnage
Rely on 6.2 to make Neptune liable for the damages. Alternatively, to rely on vicarious liability to still make Neptune liable for the damages
Possible defences for Neptune: Neptune would have to show that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent this accident from happening
Mansfield to show that he was unaware
Neptune would have to argue that 1. the SOC for KD should be lowered to take into account his mental condition which he did not know about
Even if KD was to be held to an objective SOC, he had not breached that standard since he had flown the drone "expertly"
Possible problems that we might encounter: Duty is likely to be proven. However, whether the standard of care has been breach is also likely to pose an issue.
The three members of the CA each gave separate judgments, but they were all agreed that the fact that Vince was not acting
did not entitle the first instance judge to find that Vince was not acting
and thus he was still negligent - (per Rafferty LJ),  (per Vos LJ),  (per Arden LJ).
Read Randall v Dunnage deeply and Mansfield v Weetabix, possibly Ng Keng Yong as well
case about woman at her desk in tears --> link to whether employers need to check if employees have mental illnesses
RANDALL, Mansfield CLUSTER OF CASES + other jurisdictions
Claim under Statute
WICA - for the death damages - NARASAMY CLUSTER OF CASES
How much she can claim for death
Is death an injury or accident? ** look outside of Singapore
China Taipei Insurance v Low Yi Lian Cindy
Heart attack at the workplace was considered a workplace injury
3P claim: - no need for letter of administration.
Read s 3(1) with s 3(6) of the WICA: an injury arising in the course of an employee's employment = an injury arising out of that employment (in the absence of contrary evidence)
liberal interpretation of WICA because it is a piece of social legislation that should be interpreted purposively in favour of employees who had suffered injury during their employment.
Interpretation of WICA
Interpretation as said in Pang Chew
2) "accident" includes an internal medical condition that caused an unexpected injury while the employee was carrying out his work
3) Define course of employment: Highly factual inquiry,
Look for tort cases on vicarious liability to determine whether a detour made by an employee is on his own accord or in the course of employment. the issue would be of fact and degree
1) Employee suffered personal injury
Civil Law ACT: Estate claim
Section 10 : Starkstrom and Maran. Claim can still be applicable even if dependant has made a dependency claim under WICA