It was the girl's choice to take the MRT train, she could have
taken a bus, or taxi, but chose to take a train that fateful
day.
SMRT didn't force her to take the train. Accident didn't happen
in the train, nor when she was on board. So why should it be the
transport operator's responsibility?
You can argue it happened in a train station, then I can only
reply you, its was her choice to be there. There will always be a
risk of something happening, whether you stay home or not, and the
risk of taking it, is by choice.
She stood behind the yellow line, but still something happened,
why should it again fall on SMRT's reponsibility?
I only have basic knowledge of the law but I can tell your
argument does not hold.
Even if someone volunteers for an activity, the activity cannot
be mortally dangerous. Even if SMRT puts up a sign saying "At your
own risk" it will be useless in cases of bodily injury or death. No
business can escape responsibility for personal safety.
Yes she stood behind the yellow line, but stll fell on the track
as the gap is not wide enough. SMRT knows millions of people of all
kinds, ages, states of health etc take the train and there is a
risk of one of them fainting and falling, they chose to ignore this
risk instead of widening the gap or providing doors.
The number of suicides show SMRT is fully aware of the risk but
chose to take its sweet time installing doors.
As for the $5K, SMRT is just trying to act compassionate and
hoping the Thai family doesn't know how to sue for more or is too
poor to do so.
If more people try to amputate their legs for money, it is for
SMRT to prove they did it on purpose.
