In Singapore, a Ferrari 488 GTB owner failed to secure compensation from the employer of a man who damaged his supercar in a basement carpark prank. District Judge Evans Ng ruled that the driver’s actions were not sufficiently connected to his employment to hold the company vicariously liable.
The Bottom Line
- Felix Tan filed a magistrate’s court civil claim against Sarens JWS after discovering damage to his Ferrari 488 GTB, with claims capped under $60,000.
- District Judge Evans Ng ruled the employer is not vicariously liable because the driver took the company pickup truck for personal leisure after work hours.
Civil Suit Dismissed in Magistrate’s Court
Felix Tan initiated legal action in a magistrate’s court seeking compensation for damage to his Ferrari 488 GTB, The Straits Times reported. The claim targeted Sarens JWS, a heavy-lifting specialist that leased the pickup truck driven by Niall Farley during the incident. Magistrate’s courts in the jurisdiction maintain a maximum civil claim limit of $60,000. However, District Judge Evans Ng dismissed the suit against the corporate entity after finding that the driver acted outside the scope of his employment.
The court reviewed dashcam evidence from the evening of Aug 8, 2023, following the parking of the supercar in a basement carpark in Scotts Road. Footage showed Farley driving past the Ferrari shortly before midnight and reversing into an adjacent lot in an almost empty facility. Audio recordings captured a crisp “tak” sound as the pickup’s rear bumper drew level with the vehicle’s wing mirror. The judge noted that the video recorded unmistakable laughter from the occupants, indicating a deliberate prank.
Vicarious Liability and After-Hours Vehicle Use
The central legal issue hinged on whether Sarens JWS bore responsibility for the actions of its employee. District Judge Evans Ng stated that generally, mere authority to use a company vehicle does not render an employer vicariously liable for every tort committed by the employee while using it.
Testimony from the company’s regional human resources manager established that the incident occurred well after work hours. Furthermore, company policy prohibited using the pickup for personal leisure without official approval.
The claimant pointed to an email sent by a company representative apologizing for the situation as proof of corporate responsibility. The court rejected this interpretation. Judge Ng ruled that the communication addressed Farley’s discourteous behavior rather than acknowledging legal liability or employment-related duties. Consequently, the employer escaped financial exposure for the vehicle repairs.
| Case Parameter | Details |
|---|---|
| Vehicle Models Involved | Ferrari 488 GTB and Company Pickup Truck |
| Incident Date & Location | Aug 8–9, 2023; Scotts Road Basement Carparks |
| Defendant Company | Sarens JWS |
| Driver | Niall Farley |
| Legal Forum | Magistrate’s Court (Claim limit under $60,000) |
Breach of Duty of Care in the Carpark
While the corporate employer avoided liability, the judicial findings established individual negligence by the driver. Judge Ng concluded that Farley breached his duty of care to other carpark users by parking unreasonably close to the supercar without utilizing a ground guide. This negligence directly caused a crack in the right door panel and scuff marks on the housing of the right wing mirror.
The court determined that the damage occurred through two distinct actions. First, the proximity of the vehicles produced contact resulting in the “tak” sound near the wing mirror. Second, the narrow gap between the automobiles created a foreseeable risk that the front passenger door would strike the Ferrari when opened by disembarking passengers. Despite establishing these faults, the claimant’s strategic choice to sue the corporate entity rather than the individual driver resulted in a failed recovery attempt.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.
