The blind man, Kassem, may have the rights to torts claim under the principle of duty of

care and breach of duty which are a part of formulation of negligence. Given the fact that he
suffered a broken leg as he fell into a ditch at his routine pathway in Gombak LRT Station, this
essay will discuss thoroughly on the legal position of MyLRT Bhd in the situation. The primary
question arose in deciding the liability of the defendant for negligence conduct is whether
MyLRT Bhd owes a duty of care towards Kassem as the frequent user of the stations road.
Another issue that ensued from this case is whether MyLRT had breached their duty towards
Kassem. Thus, below are further discussions to decide the liability of the train company in
regards to the two issues stated.

DUTY OF CARE
In order to prove that negligence happened, first the plaintiff has to prove that there is a
duty of care owes by the defendant. This can be achieved through three important elements that
need to be fulfilled. The first element is foreseeability. The plaintiff must prove that the
defendant could foresee that their action or omission would cause injury to someone. For
example, in the case of Ku Pon v Pemandangan Sinar Sdn Bhd, the plaintiffs family members
were kidnapped. The defendant, owner of local newspapers has published an article regarding
kidnapped victims. The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence for causing an inaccurate and
false report which led the kidnappers to demand additional ransom that could not be fulfilled.
The legal issue arose was whether the defendant could have foreseen that the plaintiff would be
injured by such report. The court laid down the general rule which was no reasonable man could
have foreseen the injury suffered by foreseen. Therefore the plaintiff failed to prove that there
was duty of care owed by the defendant.
In the current case, Kaseem, as the plaintiff, must prove that the defendant,
MyLRT Berhad could foresee the injury suffered by him. MyLRT Berhad, if
acted as a reasonable man, could foresee that if their workers do not put
sufficient precautions or cover during the maintenance work, injury could
happen. It is not the question whether the plaintiff is a foreseeable victim or
not because foreseeable victim does not mean that the plaintiff must be
identifiable by the defendant. It is adequate for the plaintiff to be a member
of group of people to whom the injury is foreseeable. Kaseem, who tripped
and fell into a half-meter deep ditch had broke his leg. Logically, anyone who
fell for a half-meter ditch would lose balance and could break their leg.

Hence, there was indeed a foreseeability of the injury suffered by the

plaintiff.
The next element that needs to be proven in order to establish duty of care is proximity of
relationship. In the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, the court defined proximity of relationship as
Proximity be not confined to mere physical, but was intended, to extend to such close
and direct relations thats the act complained of directly affects a person whom the person
alleged to be bound to take care would know would be directly affected by his careless
act.
This case was about a lady who drank a bottle of ginger beer in a caf and found a decomposed
snail at the bottom of the bottle. The lady became ill after consuming the contaminated ginger
beer and she sued the manufacturer of the ginger beer. The court established the Neighbor
Principle where the rule which states that you are to love your neighbor becomes in law, we
must not injure our neighbor. Lord Atkin, when being asked who is my neighbor?, the answer
is persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have
them in contemplating as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions
which are called in question.
In the current case, Kaseem must prove that there was proximity of
relationship between him and MyLRT Berhad. Proximity here does not mean a
physical closeness. Two persons might be sitting or standing next to each
other but there might be no duty of care as one may not expected the
presence of the other at the material time. However in this case, it is the fact
that the LRT train station is a service opened for public regardless normal or
disabled people, and adults, children or the olds. Kaseem, who is the daily,
regular customer, uses the train service everyday to go to work, and he is
indeed a member of the public. By applying the Neighbor Principle, Kaseem,
despite his disability, was among the group of people who would be so
closely and directly affected with anything that happens inside or outside the
train station. Hence, there was proximity of relationship between Kaseem
and MyLRT Berhad.
The last element is to determine whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose such
duty of care towards the defendant. In the case of Haley v London Electricity Board, a blind man
was injured when he fell into a hole dug by the workmen of defendant. Although the workmen
have laid a long handle hammer as a warning sign, it was not enough for the plaintiff who was a
blind man. The court held that it was fair, justice and reasonable to impose duty of care to the
defendant as it was their responsibility as public service to ensure maximum security to their
customer and to the public.

We can differentiate this current case from the case of Marc Rich & Co
v Bishop Rock Marine. In this case, a cargo ship owned by the plaintiff
developed a crack in the hull. The defendant, who was a non-profit,
classification society, undertook the examination of the cargo after it has
undergone temporary repair. However, the vessel then sank on voyage when
the welding of the temporary repair failed. The cargo owner took action
against several parties, including the defendant. Held, the House of Lord assumed that
there was indeed a sufficient degree of proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant.
However, it would be not fair, just and reasonable to impose duty of care towards the defendant.
The imposition would have affected the role of classification society and international trade,
considering that the defendant is a non-profit making entity who promotes safety. By right, as a
money-making company who provides facility to the public, MyLRT Berhad must ensure the
safety of their customers, as a return of the customers who have been spending money and using
their service. Moreover, this is the issue of a bigger public concern. The defendant ought to have
a deep concern for the safety of their customer, especially those who are disabled. The failure to
provide a safe public service place will lead to ignorance of the public who will not care and
contemplate about the society. Therefore, it is fair, just and reasonable to impose duty of care to
the defendant.

BREACH OF DUTY
Once it has been determined that the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care, the next
step is to consider whether the defendant has breached that duty. Generally, breach of duty is the
failure of a person to fulfill the standard of the ordinary reasonable man that has been imposed in
his or her situation. Breach of duty is said to be happened when the defendants conduct falls
short of the level required by the applicable standard of care. In other words, by doing something
which the reasonable man would not do or failing to do something which the reasonable man
would do. The question here is, how do we measure the occurrence of a breach in the standard of
care though?
In the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks, the defendant installed a water main and
fire plug into the hydrant near the plaintiffs house. After 25 years, an unusual extreme winter
happened and the plugs started to be severely frosted and damaged. This consequently caused
flood and damage to the plaintiffs house. The issue arose from this case was whether one can be
said to be negligence if he do not conduct according to the standard of a reasonable man. In

establishing the basis of the case, Baron Alderson, made what has become a famous definition of
negligence:
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing
something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The defendants might have
been liable for negligence, if, unintentionally, they omitted to do that which a reasonable
person would have done, or did that which a person taking reasonable precautions would
not have done.
The court held that the Water Works could not contemplate such severe frost. They could only be
said to have been negligent if they had failed to do what a reasonable man would do in the
circumstances. However, Birmingham had not seen such cold in such a long time and therefore,
it would be unreasonable for the Water Works to anticipate such a rare occurrence. Not only
defining negligence, this quote from this case also introduces the Reasonable Man Test. This
test is used to determine the breach of duty. It emphasized on what a reasonable man would have
acted if he was facing a particular circumstance as what the defendant had. The standard of care
required is not the defendant himself but rather the reasonable man.
There are four elements to be measure the standard of duty that a reasonable man should
complied with at the particular circumstances in which duty of care arises. Firstly, we have to
determine the omission or commission of a reasonable conduct that should or should not be done
by a reasonable man. In the case of Walker v Northumberland CC, a social worker who suffered
from depression due to greatly increasing workload reported about his condition to his employer.
He was given to understand that he would have a new assistant to ease his workload but it turned
out that this assistant was only available for short term. The plaintiff suffered a second
breakdown and had to retired. This case introduced the issue of whether an employer can be
held liable for mental injury to an employee caused by work-related stress. The judge underlined
the employers duty of care to provide safe systems of work in respect of occupational stress as
well as other hazards and to take steps to protect employees from foreseeable risks to mental
health. The omission of duty of the employer is not what a prudent and reasonable man should
have done.

Reasonableness does not mean perfection. In this second element of standard of duty,
there is no need for a man to neither be a model citizen nor perfect in every aspects. The usual
norms and activities in a particular society will be considered in determining the reasonableness
of the defendants conduct. In the case mentioned before, Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks, a
reasonable man would consider the usual range of temperature of the winter like the recent years
and act accordingly to it. It would be unreasonable for them to anticipate such occurrence as they
were acting reasonably and not perfectly.
Being reasonable and not anticipating any fantastic possibilities is another element of
standard of duty. If the possibility of danger emerging is only a mere possibility which would
never occur in the mind of a reasonable man, there is no breach of duty there. For instance, in the
case of Fardon v Harcourt Rivington, the defendant left his dog which was normally a quiet and
well-behaved animal inside his parked car. The dog was barking and jumping around, and it
broke the glass in the rear window of the car. The claimant, who was walking past, was hit by a
fragment of glass, resulting in the loss of one of his eyes. The House of Lords held that the
chance of a passer-by being hurt by a splinter of glass was so small that a reasonable man would
not guard against it, so the defendant was not liable.
Lastly, in measuring the standard of duty, idiosyncrasies are excluded. The degree of care
required in different situations varies depending on the facts and circumstances and also may
varu according to the amount of risk encountered. In the case of Glasglow Corp v Muir, while
carrying a large tea urn along the corridor, the defendant spilled the hot tea on some children.
The issue arise is whether the defendant should have foreseen that injury would occur when he
carried the big container and the court denied the foreseeability. It was held that a reasonable
man would not have foreseen such accident because the facts of the case was not naturally
dangerous and no liability should be imposed.

To conclude, it was proven that MyLRT Berhad holds a duty of care towards Kaseem.
The latter was indeed their neighbor, and they have negligently breached the duty of care while
carrying out the maintenance works by not taking sufficient precaution to avoid incident that
may happened to the public. Hence, MyLRT Berhad should be liable for the injury suffered by
Kaseem.