Ng Kay Thain and Another v Redhill Paper Converters Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wee Chong Jin CJ
• Judgment Date: 28 July 1970
• Neutral Citation: [1970] SGHC 11
• Docket Number: Suit No 370 of 1968
• Date: 28 July 1970
• Year: 1970
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: KE Hilborne
• Citation: [1970] SGHC 11
• Defendant Counsel: Sachi Saurajen
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Negligence,Duty of care,Statutory duties,Whether employer breached duty to ensure adequate instruction and supervision in operating machine,Whether machine was simple and easy to operate,Employment Law,Sections 21, 22(1) and 28 Factories Ordinance 1958 (No 41 of 1958),Employee injured while operating machine in employerÂ’s factory,Tort,Employers’ duties,Whether employer breached duty to secure dangerous part of machine,Whether employer breached duty to ensure that controls could be conveniently operated,Whether employer had provided employee with adequate instruction and supervision in operating machine

On 17 October 1967 the first plaintiff, who was then seventeen years old, was injured at his place of work and as a result his right hand was amputated at the level of the lower third of the shafts of the radius and ulna. He had commenced working for the defendants about twelve months before the accident as a sweeper.

In his statement of claim he alleged that at all material times he was employed by the defendants at their factory premises as a sweeper and in the course of his said employment he was on or about 17 October 1967 instructed by the defendants` servants or agents to operate a machine for crushing wood pulp and while operating the machine his right hand was trapped by the machine and injured owing to the negligence and/or breach of statutory duty of the defendants, their servants or agents.

The claim in respect of breach of duty or negligence under the common law is particularized as:

(a) causing or permitting him to operate the said machine by himself when they knew or ought to have known that it could only be safely operated by two persons;

(b) taking no reasonable or any precautions for his safety;

and the claim in respect of breach of statutory duty is particularized as:

(c) in breach of s 28 of the Factories Ordinance 1958 caused or permitted the first plaintiff to operate the said machine when he had not received a sufficient training in or for such work and as to the dangers likely to arise in connection therewith and the precautions to be observed nor was the first plaintiff under adequate supervision by a person who had a sufficient knowledge and experience of the said machine or process and they therefore exposed the first plaintiff to the dangers of the said machine. Alternatively, they ought to have prevented the first plaintiff from operating the said machine;

(d) in breach of s 21 of the Factories Ordinance 1958 caused or permitted the first plaintiff to operate the said machine when the same was not securely fenced under sub-s (1) of that section;

(e) failing to provide an efficient device or appliance by which electrical power could be promptly cut off from the said machine contrary to sub-s (2) of s 21;

(f) failing to provide an efficient stopping appliance the control of which was in such a position as to be readily and conveniently operated by the first plaintiff.

The particulars (d), (e) and (f) above were contained in amendments to the statement of claim granted by the court at the commencement of the trial of the action. At the final stages of the trial counsel for the plaintiffs applied to the court to further amend the pleadings to include an allegation that the defendants were in breach of s 22(1) of the Factories Ordinance 1958.

It is convenient, first, to describe the machine and how it operates. The machine is shown in the photographs which also show the `wood pulp` which is in fact shredded paper or paper sweepings which is fed into the machine to be compressed into a bale of compressed paper. An expert, Mr Loo Ming, who holds the degree of Master of Science in mechanical engineering, a member of the Institute of Engineers, Singapore and an associate member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and is presently a lecturer in the Engineering Faculty, University of Singapore, prepared a schematic or a diagrammatic representation of the working of this machine. He also gave evidence that essentially the machine consists of three sections, the prime mover, the transmission machinery with its control, and the end device or appliance. The prime mover is the electric motor that supplies the energy. The transmission machinery is the portion that is interphased between the prime mover and the end device and its purpose is to convert energy from one form to a form that is suitable for use at the end...