Search the Community

Food delivery firms take up third-party liability insurance Pedestrians now better placed to claim for damages should they get into accident involving riders Pedestrians are now better placed to claim for damages should they get into an accident involving riders from food delivery services in Singapore. Deliveroo and Grab have already taken up third-party liability insurance for their riders, while a third company, Foodpanda, is looking into purchasing the insurance. Early this week, Active Mobility Advisory Panel chairman Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim said his panel is considering recommending that such insurance be made mandatory for food delivery firms. In a Facebook post on Monday, Dr Faishal said: "We are considering third-party liability insurance, to give more peace of mind to pedestrians and riders if an accident occurs." He said more details on the potential recommendation would be announced later. Dr Faishal had said last month that his panel was concerned about reports of reckless food delivery riders who rush to make deliveries, and that it was actively looking into stronger measures to ensure that the riders are covered by third-party liability insurance. Mr Steven Lim, a member of the panel and president of the Safe Cycling Task Force, said on Wednesday that while no final decision has been made on the recommendations, food delivery companies are already encouraged to take up such insurance. He said: "The food delivery riders are the ones who actually spend a lot of time on the streets, they clock higher mileage, so the chances of them getting into an accident are actually higher than other users." Both Grab and Deliveroo told The Straits Times that they had already purchased third-party liability insurance for their riders. Deliveroo said all 6,000 of its riders have been covered by insurance for free since May last year. "Accident insurance is applicable to riders on all vehicle types and their substitutes, while all cyclists and e-scooter riders also have access to third-party liability insurance," it said. Riders are covered by insurance at a value of up to US$1.5 million (S$2.03 million) in the event that they cause injury to another person while making a delivery. The insurance would also protect the rider in cases of property damage and cover any legal costs incurred. Grab, which runs GrabFood, said its riders have been covered by third-party insurance since June 14. It said the coverage aims to provide peace of mind to both pedestrians and delivery riders. It did not disclose the total number of riders insured or the monetary value of the coverage. Foodpanda's public relations team did not respond to ST's requests for comment, but ST understands that the company is also looking into buying third-party liability insurance for its riders. Ms Lee Bee Wah, MP for Nee Soon GRC, previously suggested that third-party liability insurance be made mandatory for personal mobility device users. She told ST that the developments are a good step forward. "Having mandatory insurance for (riders) could help many pedestrians feel they have at least some recourse," she said. "More importantly, food delivery companies should hold their riders accountable for any accidents, using their tracking technology if needed." https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/food-delivery-firms-take-up-third-party-liability-insurance covers pedestrians only, no mention of cars ....

Over the weekends , I recieved this letter from MINDEF which read: "With effect from 04NOV07 , you are no longer liable for National Service pursuant to Section 2 of the Enlistment Act , Cap93.From that date , you will no longer be required to apply for an Exit Permit nor to inform MINDEF Notification Centre (MNC) when you travel overseas. .....blah..... We thank you for your contribution and hope that you will continue to give your fullest support to Singapore Total Defence .We Wish you every success in your future endeavours." Well , this is it I'm officially 'discharge'from the SAF . However , I'm going to miss all those 'brotherhood' that I have accumulated and encountered during all those active and reservists years. To all those who I have met from : 1)DEC 1987 SBMT NeeSoon Camp Bravo company 2)APR 1988 OETI Gunfitter course 3)1988-1989 Mount Vernon camp OSB 5 SUB , GSMB small arms and Amoy Quee camp GSMB heavy arms. 4)During my reservists year from 1990-2007 at GSMB and later 9DSMB Weapons/Ordnance maintenance company ; it has been a honour and very privilege to have work together with you guys !!!

Taxi rider who did not do so promptly shares 15% of liability for her injuries, court hears http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/passengers-belt-up-quickly-or-else A cab passenger who was fastening her seat belt as the vehicle was moving off will share the blame for the serious injuries she suffered when the taxi and another vehicle were involved in a collision just 20 seconds into the ride. Dr Ishkawa Natsuko, 38, suffered skull, spinal and facial fractures and was taken to the Singapore General Hospital after the March 2012 accident. She stayed there for two weeks. The Singaporean is seeking compensation for medical expenses and treatment, loss of earnings and other items. She accepted 15 per cent liability in a negligence suit she filed in the High Court against cabby Goh Peng Choon and the driver of the other vehicle. Vehicle insurers initially resisted her claims, saying she was to blame wholly or partly for not fastening the seat belt before setting off. The novel case would help to settle the issue of when the liability to ensure seat belt use kicks in - when the car is stationary or when it is in motion. Under the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Wearing of Seat Belts) Rules 2011, the driver of a car has to ensure that every passenger is belted up, with some exceptions, such as medical cases. All three witnesses testified on the first day of the trial earlier this year before Judicial Commissioner Foo Tuat Yien ended it the next day, when the parties agreed between themselves that they would apportion blame by mutual consent. Dr Natsuko was fastening her seat belt after settling her things in the back seat when the collision took place, her lawyer Renuka Chettiar said in court papers. It is understood that the parties inspected the route taken by the cab driver after picking up Dr Natsuko from Leonie Hill and making a right turn into River Valley Road, where the collision occurred. Given that the cab did not speed off after picking her up and was slowed by the turn it made, it is believed there would have been time for Dr Natsuko to fasten the seat belt while the vehicle was moving, and this would have been factored into the deliberations. Lawyer Anthony Wee, who defended Mr Goh on behalf of the vehicle insurers, said the other motorist had contributed to the collision by failing to keep a proper lookout. Mr Christopher Fernandez, who represented the second defendant, Mr Low Ka Hoe, countered that the cabby was to blame for failing to give way when coming out of a minor road onto a major road. As there were no local precedents in this area, it is understood that cases from abroad - which suggested a 10 per cent to 20 per cent contributory blame on the injured party - were considered. In a 1975 English case, Lord Justice Alfred Denning ruled that if the injuries could be prevented altogether by the use of a seat belt, then the damages payable should be reduced by 25 per cent. If the failure to wear a seat belt made a considerable difference, then the damages should be cut by 15 per cent. But if the injuries would have been the same if a seat belt had been worn, then the damages payable should not be reduced at all. That case has been cited, with modifications, as a standard reference in several Commonwealth countries such as Australia and Canada. According to the judgment order issued by the judicial commissioner, both defendants agreed to bear 85 per cent of the damages payable to Dr Natsuko. Of this 85 per cent liability, Mr Goh would bear 85 per cent of the share, while Mr Low would bear 15 per cent. The case has now proceeded to assess the amount of damages payable to Dr Natsuko, who is seeking more than $300,000. A High Court case-management conference was held last month.

Hi Bros My condo mgt wants me to get a Public Liability insurance of 1m for my renovation work and my contractor says owner has to pay for it. Is he right?

Bros, Does anyone know what ICT National Service Award mean? I was checking my NS record and realised they gave me a NS award this year under the award section. I have served 7 high and 2 low key for my ICT so far. Question is : Does this NS award equal to posting to Mindef reserve (MR) list soon? I got this from NS website on completion of NS liability : --------------------------------- Completion of NS Training Cycle Upon completion of your NS training cycle, you will be posted to the MINDEF Reserve (MR) List and be presented with a Certificate of Appreciation. Those who satisfy the criteria for the SAF NS medal will also receive a personalised watch in recognition of their service to the SAF and the nation. While in MR, you may still be called up for national service, as you remain liable for national service up to the age of 50 for Officers and 40 for WOSEs. You are to disregard your previous unit's mobilisation codewords as you are not required to report for mobilisation activation for your previous units. Should there be a need to mobilise you while you are in MR, you will be informed of your codewords accordingly. You are however, still required to abide by the existing exit controls up to your statutory age limit. ---------------------------------- Cos i had friends who served 7 high and 2 low who got their letter & i understand normally if serve 7 then consider finish liao. The NS clerk in my unit is of no use when i called up to ask. Cause me more confusion instead. Can't wait to finish my liability as the RT thingy is really irriating and affecting my work and family life. tks for any advise