EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY

A woman in her late twenties was employed as a tea lady in a factory. The factory employed about thirty workers. She would have to prepare tea for the factory workers twice a day. The container of tea would be moved to the factory floor by a trolley and then lifted onto a work bench by the tea lady. The container had a tap at the bottom to allow for easy dispensation of the tea.

As the years went by, the factory expanded and more workers were employed. The tea container became bigger and even heavier. One day when the tea lady lifted the container of tea, her spine gave way and she suffered severe injuries which forced her to be medically boarded out. She sued her employer to obtain damages under the common law for the injuries sustained.

Do you think the tea lady would succeed in her claim? On what grounds would she be basing her claim?
Let's have some comments from members.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'

Ham Kwang Chan: This is a liability claim. Claimant needs to prove neglect of her employer. This including provide safety environment and proper utensils for her in related to her works and performance. For this case, the container had become bigger and heavier until exceed the capability of tea lady. Hence, there is possibility of employer neflingence. I believed these type of cases are normally settled out of court for an amount agreed by 3 parties. 3 parties refer to the claimant, her lawyer and Insurer.

Richard Foong: If she is sosco members, she cannot claim against her employer although vicarious liability is there. Be that as it may, the employer does not owe her a duty of care. The injury is purely due to her own negligence. If it is too heavy, she should use her common sense to manage them. In my opinion, the case will not succeed.

• Alan Tang: My view is that the employer has to provide a reasonable and safe working environment for its workers. The issue of common sense on the employee aside shd not arise. The injury arises on the course of her normal work. The employer has a duty to check on the ability of the tea lady to perform the task on a bigger container,
  I believe the tea lady has a good chance to be compensated unless she did not follow the procedure given out by the employer .
• 

  Richard Foong If the EL policy contained the condition which states The insured shall take reasonable precautions to prevent accidents and if the employer did not initiate them, insurers have the rights to decline liability for breach of the condition. What is reasonable? It mean the insured must not deliberately court a danger by taking measures which he knows are inadequate to avert it. It is not enough that his omission to take some precaution is negligent. It must be reckless, not caring, though aware of the danger whether it is averted or not. The purpose of the condition is to ensure that the insured will not refrain from taking precautions simply he is covered. 
  If the insurers have evidence to substantiate the claim that the insured are in breach of this condition, insurers can refused to indemnify the plaintiff on the ground that there have been a breach of the condition. Further, the tea lady have been working in the company for many yyears
• 

  Richard Foong: She should know whether she can carry the container or not. If you can't and still persist, she is courting her own danger. In such circumstances, how could she claim against her employers. Did she informed her employer about the heavy containers? If no, how would the employer know? I still think insurers have no liability.
• 

  Alan Tang: RF- thanks for the elaborate write-up. . At the end of the day , it is imp that the agent explained clearly to the insured less the rejected claim by insurer may soured relationship . Some insurer just add this product in their package policy and some agents may not be able to explain clearly to insured