Ferrari owner fails to get compensation from employer of man who damaged supercar in prank

Published Oct 09, 2026, 07:30 PM

Updated Oct 09, 2026, 07:30 PM

Ferrari owner Felix Tan lost his compensation claim against Sarens JWS over damage caused by pickup driver Niall Farley’s parking prank in an almost empty Scotts Road carpark.

District Judge Evans Ng found Farley was negligent and caused the wing mirror and door panel damage, based on dashcam footage, laughter, and the “tak” sound.

The judge ruled Sarens JWS was not vicariously liable, as Farley’s actions were after work hours and for “his own leisure”, not in the course of employment.

SINGAPORE – The owner of a Ferrari 488 GTB has failed in his bid to claim compensation for slight damage to the supercar after a pickup truck was parked very close to it in a carpark that was almost empty – as a prank.

Ferrari owner Felix Tan filed a civil suit against the company that leased the pickup truck, but not against the pickup truck’s driver, who was then an employee at the company.

District Judge Evans Ng said that Tan had failed to prove that the pickup truck driver’s actions was sufficiently connected to his work to make his employer vicariously liable .

Niall Farley was the driver of the truck , and Sarens JWS, which specialises in heavy lifting, was his employer at that time.

In a written judgment issued on Oct 9, the judge said audio and video captured by the Ferrari’s dashcam showed that Farley had deliberately parked the pickup unusually close to the supercar as a prank.

The judge concluded that Farley’s actions caused damage to the Ferrari – a crack in the right door panel and scuff marks on the housing of the right wing mirror – even though the video did not directly show whether there was contact between the two vehicles.

But the judge said: “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.”

Although the company accepted that Farley was authorised to drive the pickup for work, its regional human resource manager testified during the trial that the incident occurred after work hours.

The manager added that Farley’s use of the pickup after office hours was against company policy and that the pickup was taken “for his own leisure” without approval.

Ng added that an e-mail sent by a company representative to Tan apologising for the situation did not amount to an admission that the company was responsible.

The judge said: “The apology concerned Mr Farley’s conceitless behaviour which inconvenienced the claimant. It did not state that Mr Farley was acting in the course of his employment or that the defendant accepted legal responsibility for the damage allegedly caused by Mr Farley.”

The quantum of damages sought was not specified in the judgment. The case was filed in a magistrate’s court, which has a maximum civil claim limit of $60,000 .

‘Laughter was unmistakeable’

On the evening of Aug 8, 2024, Tan reverse-parked his car at a basement carpark in Scotts Road.

When he returned the next morning, he found the pickup parked very close to its right, as well as discovered the damage to the wing mirror and door panel.

Footage from Ferrari’s front-facing in-car camera showed that, shortly before midnight, Farley drove the pickup past the supercar and reversed into the adjacent lot despite the carpark being almost empty.

The camera could not capture whether the pickup made contact with the wing mirror.

The video showed one of the four passengers turning to look left at the supercar, just as the pickup’s rear bumper was likely to have drawn alongside the wing mirror.

A crisp “tak” sound was recorded just as the rear bumper was probably level with the mirror.

The group then got down from the pickup and stood within view of the camera. Some of them pointed their mobile phones at the vehicles, apparently to take photographs.

Ng said: “The audio from the video is not clear enough to make out what exactly they said, but their laughter was unmistakeable: Mr Farley had deliberately parked unusually close to the supercar as a prank.”

The judge found that Farley breached his duty of care to other carpark users by deliberately parking unreasonably close to the supercar without taking reasonable precautions, such as using a ground guide.

Farley’s breach caused damage to the supercar’s wing mirror , the judge said.

The “tak” sound was likely caused by contact between the two vehicles, he said.

This was consistent with the relative positions of the two vehicles when the pickup began reversing; the pickup’s length, wheelbase, turning radius and trajectory; and the photographs showing the narrow gap between the stationary vehicles.

Ng also concluded that Farley’s negligence resulted in the damage to the door panel when the front passenger door of the pickup was opened.

The judge said this was supported by the location of the damage, the very narrow gap between the two vehicles and the circumstances in which the passengers got down from the pickup.

“Having parked the pickup so close to the supercar, with the front passenger’s door facing it, Mr Farley ought reasonably to have foreseen the risk that the door might strike the supercar if his passenger attempted to alight normally,” said the judge.

Selina Lum is senior law correspondent at The Straits Times.

发布于2026年10月9日晚上7:30

更新于2026年10月9日晚上7:30

法拉利车主 Felix Tan 因皮卡车司机 Niall Farley 在几乎空无一人的 Scotts Road 停车场恶作剧停车而造成的损失，向 Sarens JWS 公司提出的赔偿请求被驳回。

地区法官埃文斯·吴认定法利存在过失，并根据行车记录仪录像、笑声和“咔嗒”声造成了后视镜和车门面板的损坏。

法官裁定 Sarens JWS 不承担替代责任，因为 Farley 的行为是在工作时间之外，并且是“为了他自己的休闲时间”，而不是在工作过程中。

新加坡——一辆法拉利 488 GTB 的车主试图就其超级跑车遭受的轻微损坏索赔，但未能成功。此前，一辆皮卡车在几乎空无一人的停车场里，出于恶作剧的目的，将其停得离自己的跑车非常近。

法拉利车主 Felix Tan 对租赁皮卡车的公司提起民事诉讼，但没有对皮卡车司机提起诉讼，因为该司机当时是该公司的雇员。

地方法官吴埃文斯表示，谭未能证明皮卡车司机的行为与他的工作有足够的关联，从而使他的雇主承担替代责任。

尼尔·法利是这辆卡车的司机，而当时他的雇主是专门从事重型起重的萨伦斯JWS公司。

法官在 10 月 9 日发布的书面判决中表示，法拉利行车记录仪拍摄的音频和视频显示，法利故意将皮卡车停在离超级跑车异常近的地方，以此恶作剧。

法官认定，法利的行为对法拉利造成了损害——右侧车门面板出现裂缝，右侧后视镜外壳出现擦痕——尽管视频没有直接显示两辆车之间是否发生了接触。

但法官表示：“一般来说，仅仅授权使用公司车辆并不意味着雇主要对雇员在使用车辆期间所犯的每一项侵权行为承担替代责任。”

虽然该公司承认法利有权驾驶皮卡车执行工作任务，但其区域人力资源经理在审判中作证称，该事件发生在下班时间之外。

经理补充说，法利在下班后使用皮卡车违反了公司规定，而且未经批准就将皮卡车“用于他自己的休闲活动”。

吴先生补充说，公司代表向谭先生发送的道歉电子邮件并不代表公司承认对此负有责任。

法官表示：“道歉内容涉及法利先生傲慢无礼的行为，该行为给原告造成了不便。道歉中并未说明法利先生的行为是在其受雇期间进行的，也没有说明被告是否对法利先生造成的损害承担法律责任。”

判决书中并未明确规定索赔金额。该案是在地方法院提起诉讼的，地方法院民事诉讼的最高赔偿限额为6万美元。

“笑声非常明显”

2024年8月8日晚，谭某将车倒车停在史各士路地下停车场。

第二天早上他回来时，发现皮卡车停在离他右边很近的地方，还发现了后视镜和车门板的损坏。

法拉利车载前置摄像头拍摄的画面显示，午夜前不久，法利驾驶皮卡驶过这辆超级跑车，然后倒车进入了旁边的停车场，尽管停车场几乎是空的。

摄像头无法捕捉到皮卡车是否与后视镜发生碰撞。

视频显示，四名乘客中的一人转头看向左侧的超级跑车，就在这时，皮卡的后保险杠很可能已经驶到了后视镜旁边。

当后保险杠可能与后视镜齐平时，录到了一声清脆的“嗒”声。

随后，这群人下了皮卡车，站在摄像机的拍摄范围内。他们中有些人用手机对着车辆，显然是在拍照。

吴先生说：“视频中的音频不够清晰，无法听清他们具体说了什么，但他们的笑声是毋庸置疑的：法利先生故意把车停得离超级跑车很近，以此来恶作剧。”

法官认定，法利故意将车停得离超级跑车过近，却没有采取合理的预防措施（例如使用地面引导物），从而违反了他对其他停车场使用者的注意义务。

法官表示，法利的违规行为损坏了这辆超级跑车的后视镜。

他说，“嗒”的一声很可能是两辆车碰撞造成的。

这与皮卡车开始倒车时两车的相对位置、皮卡车的长度、轴距、转弯半径和轨迹，以及照片显示的静止车辆之间的狭窄缝隙相吻合。

Ng 还得出结论，Farley 的疏忽导致了皮卡车前排乘客车门打开时车门面板的损坏。

法官表示，损坏地点、两辆车之间非常狭窄的缝隙以及乘客从皮卡车上下来的情况都支持这一说法。

法官说：“法利先生将皮卡车停得离超级跑车如此之近，而且前排乘客车门正对着超级跑车，他理应预见到，如果他的乘客试图正常下车，车门可能会撞到超级跑车。”

Selina Lum是《海峡时报》的资深法律记者。