The High Court has dismissed a Polish cladding worker’s claim for damages against his former employer, Multi-Roofing Systems Limited, finding that he had not proved the company’s work practices were negligent or caused his injuries.
In a judgment delivered on 28 March 2014, Ms Justice Irvine said the plaintiff had not established, on the balance of probabilities, that he was required to move excessively heavy insulation panels without adequate help. She also rejected his allegations that he lacked training or faced pressure that made the system of work unsafe.
The plaintiff said he worked for the company from 2005 to 2010, fitting cladding on construction sites. He alleged that two workers were expected to move panels that sometimes weighed as much as 150kg, over distances and uneven ground, without sufficient assistance. He said his neck and shoulder symptoms began gradually in June 2010 and worsened until he stopped working in October that year.
The company denied negligence. Its witnesses said crews and equipment were planned for each job, heavier or longer panels received extra help, and the plaintiff had received manual handling and other safety training. The company also said he mainly worked with zinc and PVC flashing, which was less physically demanding.
The judge preferred the company’s evidence to that of the plaintiff and his two former co-workers. She considered, among other matters, that no site safety officer had cautioned the company over its work practices, and that the plaintiff and his co-workers had not suffered acute injuries or taken time off because of workplace injuries during their employment. She accepted that the plaintiff had degenerative changes in his neck, back and shoulders, and that heavy work may have aggravated those conditions or brought on symptoms. But she said that possibility did not establish negligence or a breach of statutory duty.
The judgment records that the plaintiff sought damages for past and future pain and suffering and past loss of earnings, but did not claim future loss of earnings. The court concluded that his injuries did not result from negligence or breach of duty by the company, and that his action must fail. The judgment does not specify a separate costs order.