Subject: Law of Torts (Breach of Duty)

Do read the "Hand formula" formulated by Justice Learned Hand to know more about this area of law. And of course cases in Norchaya Thalib book.

do read the case ofSusan Cheah Pik Yee v Mayban Finance Bhd [2003]. The plaintiffs had hired safe deposit boxes at the defendant's branch at Taman Cheras, Malaysia (the branch). There was a break-in at the branch. Burglars tunneled underground, dug their way through the storm-room floor of the branch, broke open, and emptied safe deposit boxes therein. The plaintiffs then pleaded causes of action in tort and sued Mayban Finance in November 1995, demanding the return of the stolen jewelry worth about RM1.56mil.

The court held, finding the defendant wholly liable for loss, awarding costs to the plaintiffs:

1, On the facts that the cause of loss was known andres ipsa loquitor(the principle that the mere occurrence of some types of accident is sufficient to imply negligence), had no application in the instantcase;

2. This was a clear case of negligence on the part of the defendant and/or its agents. It was for the defendant to be aware of the existence of devices or detectors available and to use them to protect the plaintiff's valuables;

3. As areasonable banker, the defendant should have foreseen that it was not sufficient to have a basic security system and/or devices in its premises that stored so much cash and valuables.

Justice Abdul Hamid, said the company was negligent as it had failed to safeguard the plaintiffs' valuables which were kept in the safe boxes.

"A banker should have foreseen that it is not sufficient to have what I would call a basic security system and/or devices in the defendant's premises that store so much cash and valuables.There was no evidence that a security expert was employed to ensure the safety of the plaintiffs' valuables. The so-called security system did not have infra-red motion detector."

The judge said another clear example of the finance company's negligence was its failure to take action when the alarm in its premises went off on the morning of March 3, 1995.He said the security company's employees and the police could not get into the premises as two officers of the finance company, who had the keys to the building and should be readily available in the event the alarm was activated, could not be contacted."It is my finding that as a reasonable banker of its standing, the defendant had failed to ensure that the valuables were safely kept and taken care of."

what is your view?