SBS Transit Rail found 100% responsible for 2022 accident trapping passenger’s head and neck in train doors

SINGAPORE: SBS Transit Rail was found fully responsible for an incident in June 2022 at Punggol MRT station, where passenger Ng Lai Ping’s head and neck were trapped between train doors. The judgment, delivered on 13 August 2025 by District Judge Sim Mei Ling, ruled the company had breached its duty of care. Liability and quantum of damages will proceed to trial.

Sequence of events leading to the accident

On 27 June 2022 at about 10.35am, Ng boarded a six-carriage train at Sengkang MRT station, intending to travel onwards from Punggol to Little India. She sat in carriage five. After the train reached Punggol, Ng remained seated with five other passengers. She was not on her phone or wearing headphones. She testified that the main lights switched off suddenly, without warning. Only the door lights remained on. Hearing the beeping that doors were closing, she quickly picked up her bag, tripped on the reflective floor, and struck her face against the platform gap before the train and platform doors closed on her head and neck. An MRT employee and a passer-by assisted her after the incident.

Disputed announcements and procedures

Ng told the court that announcements indicated service had resumed both en route from Sengkang and again at Punggol station, leading her to believe the train was still in service. She maintained that she did not hear any clear instructions to alight, nor see staff enter carriage five to guide passengers. No use of red light batons was observed. In contrast, SBS Transit said the train was being withdrawn from service. The company cited standard procedures, which included repeated multi-language announcements, platform warnings, and staff directing passengers to disembark. Three employees were supposed to board the train to ensure passengers exited: two customer service assistants carrying red batons and an assistant station manager. However, SBS Transit admitted that no staff entered carriage five on that day.

CCTV footage but no audio evidence

Video recordings from train and station cameras were produced, but they lacked audio. The footage showed staff presence and passengers leaving, but not announcements or instructions. One staff member, referred to as “Staff V”, had been inside carriage five but was seen leaving the train and checking his phone on the platform instead of assisting passengers. Within 31 seconds of the doors opening, the carriage lights dimmed. Ng had about 12 seconds to reach the doors before they shut.

Legal arguments presented in court

Ng, represented by lawyer Gregory Chong of Loo & Chong Law Corporation, argued that SBS Transit was negligent. The claims included:

• Failure to provide adequate announcements before switching off lights.
• Failure to send staff into the carriage to ensure passengers alighted.
• Closing doors despite passengers attempting to exit.
• Chong asserted that incorrect announcements were played, further misleading passengers.

Defence counsel Anthony Wee of Titanium Law Chambers argued that Ng was negligent. He claimed she had ample warning from announcements and lighting changes and should have known the train was out of service. He said Ng’s actions in running to the door were reckless and contributed to her fall. SBS Transit maintained that its systems and staff were sufficient to prevent incidents, noting no similar accidents had occurred in years of operation. SBS Transit’s duty operations manager, See Lye Yun, stated that there had not been any similar incident at Punggol MRT Station for 10 years prior to this incident or since the incident to date. Based on the ridership of the NEL in 2022 at 177 million and 33.28 million for Punggol MRT Station during peak hours, he derived an incident rate of 0.000000056% for overall ridership for the NEL and 0.00000304% for Punggol MRT Station during peak hours. Judge Sim, however, rejected the statistics, noting that no supporting documents were produced and that See himself denied verifying the figures. Nevertheless, she accepted that the probability of a train door closing on a passenger during train withdrawal is low.

Judge’s findings and reasoning

Judge Sim found Ng’s testimony broadly consistent, even though video evidence contradicted her on the length of entrapment. She noted that five other passengers in carriage five also stayed seated until the lights dimmed, suggesting the announcement made was of a service resumption, not withdrawal. She ruled it improbable that all six passengers missed a four-language out-of-service announcement if it had been correctly played. The judge also drew an adverse inference from SBS Transit’s decision not to call two key staff, including Staff V, as witnesses. She concluded that the company had “more likely than not” played the wrong announcements, and failed to issue platform warnings.

Breach of care established

Judge Sim held that SBS Transit failed to warn passengers before switching off lights, did not adequately instruct staff to ensure passengers alighted, and operated the train negligently while passengers were still inside. While acknowledging that the statistical risk of such incidents was low, she ruled that this did not absolve the operator of its duty to safeguard passengers. The court’s finding establishes full liability on the part of SBS Transit. Issues of compensation and damages will be addressed in the next phase of the trial. Ng’s exact injuries and recovery details have not yet been disclosed in court.