LIU AH SAI v. YIU LIAN DOCKYARDS LTD

1995, No. P.I.1121

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

PERSONAL INJURIES

---------------

---------------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

-----------------------

1. The plaintiff Mr LIU Ah Sai is taking proceedings against the defendant, the Yiu Lian Dockyards Ltd, which was at the relevant time his employer, for damages suffered by him when he sprained his left wrist during the course of his employment.

2. Broadly speaking, the plaintiff bases his case on an allegation of negligence by the defendant in failing to provide a safe system of work. The only evidence as to liability comes from the plaintiff himself. When this evidence has been led, Mr WONG, on behalf of the defendant, elected to call no evidence and has submitted that the defendant has no case to answer. It is my task now to examine the plaintiff's evidence to see whether it establishes a case.

3. It must be said that the plaintiff was an unsatisfactory witness, but I will look at his evidence in the best possible light to see whether he has made out his case.

4. The plaintiff is a very experienced mechanic. In particular, he is very experienced as a mechanic working on vessels. He has been employed on vessels as a fitter and junior or assistant engineer for a long time. He commenced employment with the defendant as a fitter in September 1989, and he suffered his injury on 27 December 1990.

5. On that day, he was part of a team working on dismantling the tail shaft of a vessel in one of the defendant's dockyards. The work involved on that occasion was to loosen large bolts securing the tail shaft to the propeller shaft. This involved loosening the nuts on these bolts, and this involved the use of a spanner and a heavy sledgehammer. The bolts were then extracted from the tail shaft, and during this process, the bolts were supported by the use of a block and tackle. When the bolts were extracted, the nut was screwed back on to the bolts, and it was the plaintiff's job to lift the bolts into a tank.

6. The plaintiff says that he lifted three of the bolts into this container; but when he was in the course of placing the fourth bolt into the container, his right hand slipped from the bolt, the bolt then swung, and this resulted in the sprain to his left wrist. He then rested for an hour or so, completed placing the bolts into the container, and the container holding the bolts was then transported to the maintenance room, again using a block and tackle.

7. This was not the first time the plaintiff had done this kind of work. He told me that he had lifted the bolts in this way a lot of times before. On that evidence, I have to decide whether the plaintiff has established that the defendant was in breach of a duty towards him in providing a safe system of work.

8. The emphasis of the plaintiff's case as presented to me is that the bolts were too heavy to be handled by a single man without some mechanical assistance. But the plaintiff himself does not say this. He said several times during the course of his evidence that he was quite capable of handling these bolts without the assistance of another worker, or a block and tackle, or some other mechanical assistance. He does not himself suggest that what happened was due to the fact that the bolt was too heavy to be handled. His evidence is that he did not seek any human or mechanical assistance because he did not need it. He says that the bolt slipped out of his right hand because it was new, and therefore, as I understood him, slippery. It was not slippery, he says, because it was coated with oil or some other slippery medium.

9. What happened in this case, in my view, was not due to any negligence by the defendant. It was simply an accident. I don't know whether that was because the plaintiff was careless. It seems to me that the fact that the bolt slipped from his right hand cannot be attributed to any breach of duty by the defendant. Accordingly, it is my conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the defendant was in any way negligent.

10. I should say that the plaintiff, in his statement of claim, relies also upon a breach by the defendant of an occupier's duty and a breach of contract. But Mr LAW who has said everything that could possibly be said in support of the plaintiff's claim rightly bases his argument on, broadly speaking, a breach by the defendant of the duty to provide a safe working environment. As I have said, I cannot, taking the plaintiff's evidence at its very best, find that there is any case to support that allegation. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

11. There is no reason why costs should not follow the event.

(J. K. Findlay)

Judge of the High Court