Industrial explosions have a way of revealing truths that often stay hidden during normal operations. A spark can ignite in a matter of seconds, exposing every flaw in safety planning, oversight, and legal accountability. After the smoke clears, there will be a financial and legal reckoning in addition to a physical cleanup. The question then arises: who should bear the burden of a risk that everyone knew existed?
Whether the explosion starts from welding sparks, chemical reactions, gas leaks or machinery failure, the aftermath consistently tests the same fault lines: duty of care, foreseeability, statutory compliance, and contractual responsibility. These are not abstract principles; they play out vividly in the cases brought before the courts.
One such example is the welding explosion in Yee Thian Futt & Ors v Liew San Kian & Ors [2018] 3 MLRH 67, where a simple repair job escalated into a destructive fire. There were no hot-work permits, no shielding, no fire watchers — only a contractor pushing ahead without taking basic precautions. The Court held that welding, by its nature, carries foreseeable risks, and the failure to comply with industry-standard safety protocols was not just carelessness but a breach of duty toward both the premises owner and neighbouring businesses. This case is a reminder that in hazardous work, “not knowing” is never a defence, and “not supervising” is never an excuse.
Another striking illustration comes from IOI City Mall Sdn Bhd v Glomedic Industries Sdn Bhd [2023] MLJU 2423, where chlorine was incorrectly topped up into a storage tank, causing a chemical explosion. The task was a routine procedure, performed countless times without any incident. However, when carried out without due care, even routine acts become dangerous. The Court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, recognising that such an explosion would not occur in the absence of negligence. It also reaffirmed an important principle: contractual duties and tortious duties can coexist and professionals cannot escape responsibility simply because their actions fall within the scope of a service agreement.
Both cases reveal a pattern seen across many explosion disputes, where courts focus not on whether an explosion could happen, but on whether the parties involved took simple and reasonable steps to prevent it. Foreseeability is rarely in doubt when explosions arise from activities that everyone recognises as dangerous.
International decisions from Singapore and the UK add further dimension. Both jurisdictions adopt a more expansive view of responsibility in hazardous operations, often treating safety duties as non-delegable whenever the activity involves fire, chemicals, confined spaces or complex industrial processes. The courts consistently expect employers, principals, or premise owners to maintain overarching control of risk, even if the physical work has been outsourced to specialists. In these jurisdictions, it is not enough to simply appoint a contractor. There must be active supervision, clear hazard communication, and assurance that safety protocols are followed. When these elements are missing, courts readily attribute liability to multiple parties, recognising that explosions rarely arise from a single failure but from a breakdown in coordinated safety management.
Another important development is how our courts handle apportionment of liability in explosion cases involving multiple parties. Although apportionment allows the court to recognise that several roles may have contributed to the incident, it does not defeat the claim under subrogation. As long as a third party is proven negligent, the insurer retains the right to recover that party’s share of liability. The recovery reflects the defendant’s breach of duty, and the right of recovery does not disappear. This is particularly relevant in industrial settings where contractors, subcontractors, and owners share overlapping duties. By establishing that the defendant’s breach played a real and causal role, it would enable the insurers to pursue the recoverable portion.
As industries grow more complex, those who understand this intersection of law, safety, and insurance will not only manage the aftermath more effectively but also will help prevent the next explosion before it occurs.