Does disabled Thai teen deserve S$2.75M compensation?

2
Anonymous donors gave S$250,000 to Thai teen whose her legs were severed by a train when she fell onto MRT track.

Despite that, her family is sueing SMRT for S$2.75M in compensation. SMRT had offered S$4,000 prior. (Yup, it's the correct figure but now SMRT clarified that SMRT had offered this "goodwill financial assistance" - an initial sum of $10,000 to facilitate her family travelling to Singapore to be with her, followed by another $5,000 at the end of last month).

Back then, the girl said she felt dizzy before falling on the tracks. Now, her father says that she was fully conscious and did not faint so something else must have happened.

The compensation offered by SMRT seems to me to be meagre and insulting. But trains operate without barricades in many countries, including Thailand.

When the trains first started operations in Singapore, there were only yellow lines drawn on the floor. We hardly heard of people falling onto the tracks back then. Now things seem to be different. People still couldn't keep behind the metal stubs that were put on the floor for the visually handicapped. Then doors were constructed at stations with open platforms but before they were operational, still more people died or got injured on the tracks. What is wrong? Why can't we keep a safe distance from the train till it stops completely? Because we are afraid to be late for work or for an appointment? In the midst of fast-paced life here, we may have forgotten this saying: better late than never. So please, take care while you are commuting or crossing the road. Being on time or thumbing an SMS isn't more important than your limbs and life.

Does the girl deserve to lose her legs because she failed to keep a safe distance from the edge of the platform? Most certainly not! Nobody deserves that.

But does she deserve to receive S$2.75m in compensation? That's a case for the "learned" lawyers to establish and for the court to decide.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

If the cctv clip determines she fell on her own accord, some goodwill compensation is in order.

But if she fell because reasonable precautions were not taken by the SMRT to protect commuters, then by all means sue to the limit.

But I believe reasonable precautions have been taken. Commuters must play their part to use the public transport sensibly and take their own precautions.

Imagine the ramifications on the SMRT and other transport bodies if compensation were to be given freely without due and careful consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding an incident.

But I speculate that if the girl fell for no apparent rhyme or reason, she must be suffering from some psychological ailment at that time and therefore need psychiatric help. She must be seriously depressed with something to want to hurt herself without giving much thought to the consequences of her rash action.

silli cat

Anonymous said...

great answer! couldn't have put it better myself.