” NO Wet Place” ON AIRCRAFT
Singapore Airlines acknowledges that Mr. Durairaj fell on the trip, but it denies that the surface of the aircraft was a slick area.
Additionally, it denied that he had been injured because it had violated its commitment to treat him.
The judge took note of the differences between Mr. Durairaj’s account of the incident and that of other aircraft team members.
After hearing the other witnesses ‘ accounts, he said Mr Durairaj was hardly a reliable see.
Justice Coomaraswamy claimed that there were several” self-serving” variations between what he had stated in his oath and his testimony in court.  ,
In his , oath, he stated that he had informed his better about a “grease update” on the kitchen floor “immediately” after finding it and that he had tried to clean the piece only after his better instructed him to do so.
He claimed during the cross-examination in court that he had made a second attempt to clear the wax piece on his own initiative using paper hand towels and preservative before bringing the matter up with his superior.
In addition, Mr. Durairaj claimed in his oath that despite his best efforts to get rid of the grease patch after his better had given him instructions, it remained on the floor.
However, he later claimed in court that his first cleansing attempt, which he made on his own initiative, actually removed the grease patch, even though the floor’s surface was also wet.  ,
He added that after that test, the wax patch became visible, although it appeared” a little sparkly” just to him.
Additionally, Mr. Durairaj’s affidavit does not mention any other members of the cabin crew who had tested the wet region after removing the grease patch.
He claimed for the first time that he and some of the attendants had tested the area of the exhibition floor and discovered it to be rough during cross-examination.
Describing this “embellishment” in the cross-examination, the prosecutor said the disparities in his account in judge and that of his oath were one reason he found Mr Durairaj to not be a reliable see.
He called these distinctions” self-serving”. No one of the other witnesses on the journey ever noticed any “grease piece” or other foreign material on the exhibition floor at any point during the flight.
” For all of the following grounds, I attach no weight to the dental evidence of the claimant”, said the judge.
” In certain, I reject his dental proof that there was any area of the kitchen floor that was wet. His dental information so falls short of fulfilling his burden of proof on this crucial aspect of his situation, in fact, much short.
He also found SIA’s testimony, which included other atmosphere stewards on the trip, to include provided” consistent, clear and credible information”.
Four flight team members testified that they did not notice any grease or other element on the gallery floor at any point during the trip.
No one else had complained about any spills on the floor or about any slick areas on the floor, neither a part of the cabin crew nor a customer. No one had slipped on any part of the ground or fallen, except for Mr Durairaj, said one hear.
The judge said he does not take Mr Durairaj’s say that the witnesses were biased in favour of the flight, as they were SIA people.
According to the judge,” I have concluded that they gave their information in a forthright manner and in a manner that was cogent and constant without being forced or collusive,” even after evaluating their demeanor in the witness box and even after reminding myself of the shortcomings of such an examination.
NO BREACH OF CARE DUTY
Justice Coomaraswamy also found that SIA did not breach , the duty of care that it owed , Mr , Durairaj as it took “reasonable” measures to provide a safe place of work on board its aircraft.
According to SIA’s evidence, all new cabin crew members had to go through a rigorous training program. In this program, cabin crew members are instructed to immediately clean the affected area and remove any spills on their own initiative.
They are trained to escalate the problem to a supervisor if they are unable to remove the spill.
Mr. Durairaj had this training to handle spills.
The court was told that this training “instills in the cabin crew a strong, career-long understanding of the importance of safety in general and the importance of not leaving spillage on the aircraft floor in particular.”
This is confirmed by the other witnesses ‘ testimony.
Additionally, the SIA workplace safety department periodically reminds the cabin crew. In June 2019, a similar reminder was sent to the cabin crew to warn them, among other things, about the possibility of getting hurt when you slip and fall on a plane.
” The evidence satisfies me that the defendant’s training and follow up measures have been effective virtually to eliminate the risk of slips and falls on board the defendant’s aircraft”, said , Justice Coomaraswamy.
Slips and falls on board SIA aircraft are “exceedingly rare,” he noted, noting that it is this” strong culture of safety.” Witnesses for the other said they had never witnessed anyone fall on SIA’s flights.