In Court THis Week

In Court This Week

The Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Karunakaran has awarded R71, 000 damages with 4% interest and costs to a young man against a well known construction company. The young man fell down a slippery roof and suffered extensive injuries as a result.

The man had been sent to work for the company by the Ministry of Employment under the Young Apprenticeship Scheme to gain working experience. Whilst working on the roof of a two storey building he slipped and fell down after it started to drizzle. His Supervisor, who was working with him at the time, had quickly left the roof when it started to rain leaving the apprentice behind to fend for himself, when the incident happened.

The Defendant had filed a defence with the Court in which they claimed that the Plaintiff was not employed by them and that the Ministry of Employment is the one liable to pay the Plaintiff damages. The Plaintiff had claimed R.462, 000 damages for pain and shock, swollen right foot, tenderness over 2nd metatarsal bone and the right shoulder, restricted movement in right shoulder and weakness and stiffness of right shoulder.

The accident which happened on 30th May 1997 resulted in the Plaintiff being admitted in Victoria hospital for medical treatment on the same day. He was discharged 6 days later. His right foot was immobilized by plaster of paris for 4 weeks. His right shoulder was treated by physiotherapy, acupuncture and analgesics. The Plaintiff is now severely limited in his daily activities and was unable to return to his pre-accident employment. He is currently unemployed and the evidence shows that he is unlikely to find suitable employment in the future. The Plaintiff had claimed R.100, 000 for moral damages, R.50,000 loss of amenities, R.12,000 loss of earnings at R.1000 per month from 30th May 1997 and R. 300,000 for permanent disability of 15%. However, the Court remarked that damages is compensatory rather that punitive and awarded only R.71,000 to the Plaintiff.

Unfortunately apprentices like the Plaintiff are not covered under the Employment Act 1995 and there are now calls for the Government to amend the Act further to incorporate a legal regime to cover these young workers. The Employment Act 1995 amended the 1993 Act but no legal framework was introduced to cover these workers.

Legal experts have suggested that the solution is perhaps for the government to introduce or amend current legislation to make it compulsory for Employers to take out Employers’ Liability Insurance policies for their employees to be compensated under the Insurance Policy rather than by the Employer, when injuries are sustained as a result of accident at work. This is especially necessary in places of work where the risks of injuries are the highest such as at sea or on construction sites.

It is to be noted that another young man had earlier this year also filed a similar case against a construction company for injuries he suffered when he was electrocuted whilst working on a construction site. He suffered first degree burns over his face and body as a result. The case is yet to be heard by the Supreme Court although a similar outcome would not be surprising. The lawyer for the Defendant had also filed a similar defence claiming that the Ministry of Employment is the one responsible. They have also filed a motion seeking to add the Ministry of Employment as a third party to the proceedings. The motion is yet to be disposed of by the Court.

Accidents in work places are currently on the rise despite the government’s best efforts to tackle the problem.