Oberoi Imperial Hotel v Tan Kiah Eng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong J
• Judgment Date: 02 January 1992
• Neutral Citation: [1992] SGCA 1
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 84 of 1990
• Date: 02 January 1992
• Year: 1992
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: NK Pillai (Harry Elias & Partners)
• Citation: [1992] SGCA 1
• Defendant Counsel: Karuppan Chettiar (Murphy & Dunbar)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Employee continuing to work in dangerous situation,Absolute duty,Employees’ duties,Duty to provide safe system of work,Duty of care,Non-delegable,Danger created by employer,Knowledge of danger,Negligence,Employment Law,ss 3 & 22 Factories Act (Cap 104),Whether employee contributorily negligent,Employee's duty of care,Tort

Cur Adv Vult

This was an appeal from the decision of Rajah J wherein he found the appellants wholly liable for the injuries suffered by the respondent while at work in the course of her employment in the laundry room at the appellants` hotel. At the end of the hearing, we dismissed the appeal for the reasons that appear below. The facts

The facts of this case may be stated shortly. The respondent had been educated in a Chinese school which she had left after completing her secondary four education. She then went through a series of jobs, none of which required much skill, before joining the appellants in July 1977 as a laundry operator. At the date of the accident on 17 June 1983 she was about 34 years of age.

The appellants` hotel employed about 40 laundry operators who were divided into two sections, namely, the washing and the ironing sections. The respondent was employed in the latter and her duties included the ironing of bedsheets, pillow cases, towels and clothes. The laundry operators were also divided into senior and junior operators and at the time of the accident the respondent was considered a senior operator. The operators were supervised by a laundry supervisor who in turn reported to the manager in charge of the laundry room. The laundry manager was assisted on the technical side by an assistant engineer who in turn was assisted by two laundry technicians.

The respondent did her ironing work on pressing machines and there were several different models in the laundry room and they were all operated differently. According to the respondent, she did not receive any formal training when she joined the appellants. She was not placed on any training course nor was she given any instructions by the supervisor as to how to operate the machines. She learnt on the job from her fellow operators and this method of training workers continued right up to the date of the accident, with the respondent, as a senior operator, having some responsibility for training new operators. The allegation of the lack of formal training for laundry operators was denied by one Baldev Singh who was the laundry manager at the material time. He had joined the appellants in 1973 as a trainee supervisor and had been promoted to an assistant laundry manager by 1975. He then left to join another hotel before rejoining the appellants in 1981 as a laundry manager. According to him, all new operators who joined the appellants in 1977 were placed on a two-week training programme conducted by the supervisor or the manager. The learned judge did not indicate which version he believed. In view of the fact that Baldev Singh was not employed by the appellants when the respondent joined the hotel in 1977, we were inclined to prefer the respondent`s evidence as to the lack of formal training for operators. We also found it crucial, for reasons that appear below, that, even if the version given by Baldev Singh was true, the formal training was sadly lacking in the important aspect of educating the laundry operators on the safe operation of the pressing machine. Baldev Singh said in his evidence:

... We normally do not highlight the safety features of the machines because they come with safety features. Because of the presence of safety features we do not tell them what not to do. We teach them to operate the machine.

The accident occurred when the respondent was pressing a T-shirt on a hot steam press machine made by a company known as Ibis Hoffman (`the laundry press`). In order to press a T-shirt, the respondent would normally have placed it on the top of the ironing board and then lowered a cover piece known as the head buck on to the ironing board. As designed by the manufacturer, the head buck would be lowered when two black buttons on the right side of the laundry press were simultaneously depressed together with a green button on the left side. This simultaneous action kept both of the operator`s hands away from the ironing board as the head buck was lowered and prevented any possibility of the operator`s hands coming into contact with the head buck. This was important as the head buck was heated and it was not disputed that the three button system was the safety feature of the laundry press machines. After the head buck was lowered, the operator would then release steam by using either a hand pedal or a foot pedal or both. After pressing the garment, the operator would release the head buck by depressing a red button on the side of the machine.

Unfortunately, as we shall see later, this system as designed by the manufacturer had been altered and, on the day of the accident, when she had placed the T-shirt on the top of the ironing board and was smoothening out the material with her right hand, the head buck came down suddenly. The heat of the head buck scalded her right hand badly. Her efforts to raise the head buck by pressing the release button failed as that button would only work if the head buck was flat on the top of the affixed piece. As a result, the respondent`s hand was stuck under the head buck for around ten minutes and the consequential injury has substantially reduced the function of her right hand. It was also said that the respondent was self-conscious of the disfigured hand and suffered from reactive depression and a severely restricted social life as a result.

The respondent subsequently brought this action against the appellants for damages for the injuries suffered, alleging that the injuries were caused by an unsafe system. This unsafe system was said to have been brought about by an alteration to the original two-handed operation (described above) of the laundry press and this alteration was alleged to have been in breach of the appel` common law duties as employers in that they had:

(a) failed to take any or any adequate precautions for the respondent`s safety at work;

(b) exposed the respondent to a risk of injury they had or ought to have foreseen;

(c) caused the alteration that resulted in an unsafe system;

(d) allowed the laundry press to be operated when it was unsafe to do so; or

(e) failed to provide a safe or proper system of work.

Further, or alternatively, the respondent alleged that the appellants were in breach of the statutory duties imposed on them by the equivalent of the present ss 20, 21 and 22 of the Factories Act (Cap 104) (`the Act`).

In their defence, the appellants denied that the system of work they provided to the respondent was unsafe. They also denied all knowledge of the alteration and alleged that if the system of work had been altered, it had been altered without their authority, and the respondent was one of the workers who caused or consented to the alteration. Further, or alternatively, the appellants contended that the respondent had been contributorily negligent and/or in breach of her statutory duty under the present ss 80 and 81 of the Act. The appellants also pleaded the defence of volenti non fit injuria.

The evidence as to the alteration to the laundry press was that sometime in February 1983, several of the laundry operators had approached one Michael Tan, one of the laundry technicians, to see if he could alter the laundry press to make it work faster. He complied but reverted to the original system a few days later when the pneumatic compressor on the modified press did not work properly. Subsequently, two or three months before the accident, he again altered the laundry press at the request of several operators by rewiring it so that the head buck would be lowered by depressing only the red button, thus enabling the laundry press to be operated with only one hand, leaving the other hand free. Under the altered system, the head buck would be released when one of the black buttons was depressed. The laundry press was operated by this altered system at the time of the accident. The evidence also showed that although the respondent was not one of the workers who requested the alteration, she knew of it and had worked the altered operation on many occasions before the accident without any discomfort.

The learned judge found the appellants to have been in breach of their duty to maintain a safe system of work. In his view,...