Read the full judgment text of HCPI 000536/1996 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 1 November 1996 before Leong, J..
Personal injuries – employer's common law duty of care – safe system of work – safe tools – warning of risks – cleaning workman employed by Government – three alleged back injuries in April, May and July 1989 – whether defendant breached duty regarding each injury – whether injuries connected and aggravating – held: no breach of duty established for any of the three injuries – plaintiff failed to prove case – claim dismissed. The plaintiff, a Government cleaning workman responsible for sweeping two parks and playgrounds and transporting refuse to a refuse centre, alleged she injured her back on 21 April 1989 using a longer broom, on 23 May 1989 lifting heavy wet refuse bags after a typhoon, and on 23 July 1989 while squatting to pick up rubbish. First issue: whether the defendant failed to provide a safe tool or safe system of work for the April 1989 injury – held: no, the broom's unsafety was not proved and the medical evidence described the injury as minor. Second issue: whether the defendant failed to provide a safe system of work and warnings for the May 1989 injury – held: no, applying Winter v Cardiff RDC the task was simple and the plaintiff had discretion over bag weight and pace; the cases of Ping v Esselte Letraset, Lai Wah Wai v Castco Testing Centre, Kinsella v Harris Lebus, Hamilton v Western SMT and Osarak v Hawker Siddeley were distinguished. Third issue: whether the three injuries were connected – held: no, medical evidence showed the April and May injuries involved different areas and the July injury did not aggravate the May injury. Fourth issue: whether the defendant was at fault regarding the July 1989 injury – held: no, Mr Wong assigned light duties without any medical recommendation. Outcome: claim for damages dismissed; judgment entered for the defendant with costs; plaintiff's own costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.
Legal issues: Whether the defendant breached duty of care regarding the 21 April 1989 back injury (safe tool / safe system of work) · Whether the defendant breached duty of care regarding the 23 May 1989 back injury (failure to provide safe system of work / warnings) · Whether the April, May and July 1989 injuries were connected or aggravating of one another · Whether the defendant was at fault regarding the July 1989 injury
Outcome: Claim for damages dismissed; judgment entered for the defendant with costs.
Cited by 4 cases