Christie (Annette) v Nutrition Products Ltd and Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: HARRISON J.
• Judgment Date: 30 March 2001
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2001] 3 JJC 3001
• Date: 30 March 2001
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

IN COMMON LAW

Mr. N.O Samuels for the Plaintiff.

Mr. K. West instructed by Grant, Stewart, Phillips and Co. for First Defendant.

BETWEEN

ANNETTE CHRISTIE

PLAINTIFF

AND

NUTRITION PRODUCTS LTD.

1 ^ST DEFENDANT

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

2 ^ND DEFENDANT

OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY - Slipping on wet floor - Breach of statutory duty - Award of damages

HARRISON J

1 The facts

2 The plaintiff has brought this action against the defendants and is seeking to recover damages from the first defendant for personal injuries she sustained as a result of her fall at the defendant's factory on the 21 ^st day of November 1989. Prior to the commencement of this trial she had discontinued the action against the second defendant.

3 She is a married woman, 36 years of age, and was employed as a packer in the bakery section of the first defendant, Nutrition Products Ltd. She testified that at the material time she was in the process of collecting a package of drinks in the dairy section when she slipped on flooring that was wet. She became unconscious and found herself later in Annotto Bay Hospital. She sustained a fracture of the left wrist and was treated for her injury.

4 The plaintiff resumed her job as a packer but due to constant pain and discomfort in the left wrist she was referred to Mr. Grantel Dundas, an Orthopaedic Surgeon, by Dr. Sloley. She underwent operation on the wrist at St. Joseph's Hospital and thereafter resumed work after several sessions of physiotherapy. She could not cope as a result of difficulties she was still experiencing with the left hand, hence she requested of her supervisor lighter work. This request was denied and according to her there was no alternative but to go home. Since then, she has not worked except for selling small packages of food items to children at a nearby school in her community.

5 The Pleadings

6 The plaintiff has alleged the following particulars of negligence in her Statement of Claim:

7 PARTICULARS OF NEGLIGENCE

"The first defendant was negligent in that they failed to provide a safe system of work in that:

• (a) They failed to provide a safe means of access and egress to the place where the plaintiff was required to work.

• (b) They created a dangerous condition in which the plaintiff was required to work in that water was continually collecting on the floor where the Plaintiff and other workers had to work thereby causing the said area to become slippery.

• (c) They caused or allowed the plaintiff to walk with load in an area which they knew was wet and slippery.

• (d) The first defendant failed to provide a clean area for the Plaintiff to work and thereby caused her to slip and fall on the wet and slippery concrete floor.

• (e) It failed to provide the plaintiff with suitable gear particularly rubber foot wear to avoid falling on the slippery floor."

8 PARTICULARS OF NUISANCE

• (f) The first defendant created a dangerous state of things in the area where they knew that the plaintiff was required to work by allowing the said area to become wet and slippery.

• (g) The first defendant rendered the said area permanently wet and slippery be(sic) means of the poor method adopted in filling and washing containers in the said area.

• (h) The plaintiff well (sic) rely on particulars of negligence as Breaches of Nuisance.

9 BREACH OF THE OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT.

10 The first defendant failed in its duty of care to the Plaintiff to see that the said factory premises were reasonably safe for the purposes for which the plaintiff was required to be there.

11 BREACHES OF THE FACTORIES ACT

• 1. They failed to send(sic), clean, or otherwise to remedy the slippery condition of the floor contrary to Regulation 25 of the said Regulations.

• 2. They failed to maintain suitable and sufficient safe access to and egress from the said area where the plaintiff was required to work from time to time.

• 3. They failed to appoint a Supervisor to see that at all times the place where the Plaintiff was required to work was reasonably safe for that purpose.

12 The first defendant denied that the plaintiff was injured during the course of her employment and has alleged inter alia, as follows:

• "4.....The first defendant says that in accordance with the regulations of the first defendant company, employees are to remain in their work areas and not to trespass in other work areas. As such, the plaintiff as a worker in the bakery section was specifically instructed not to go to the dairy area and further it was not part of the Plaintiff's duties to collect or otherwise deal with packaged drinks."

• 5...The first defendant says that the plaintiff was not required to work or to go and was not instructed to go to the dairy area and as such was not issued with footwear appropriate for workers in the area. Further, the first defendant says that the said incident was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the Plaintiff.

• (A) Entering the dairy area when she was instructed to remain in her own work area and not to trespass in other work areas.

• (B) Failing to wear footwear appropriate for persons entering the dairy area.

• (C) Failing to take any or any proper precautions before entering the dairy area from the bakery area.

• (D) Failing to keep any or any proper look out before stepping into the dairy area."

13 The first defendant further alleged that the plaintiff was a trespasser in the dairy area since she had been instructed not to go beyond her own work area. No admission was made with respect to the premises being a factory and that there were breaches under the Factory Act.

14 The Reply to the Defence alleges inter alia:

• 1. Paragraph 4 of the defence is denied. The plaintiff says, if which is not admitted there were at the material time regulations restricting the movement of workers within the factory maintained by the defendant such restrictions were never communicated to the plaintiff by its servants, agents or by any means whatsoever. Further the plaintiff says she had specific instructions from one Miss Dawn Robinson the then Manager of the factory and as such a servant or agent of the defendant to go to the dairy area where she received her injuries as aforesaid. The plaintiff repeats that she was sent to collect packaged drinks from the dairy area as aforesaid.

• 2. Paragraph 5 of the defence is denied and each and every particular of negligence therein pleaded against the plaintiff. In particular the plaintiff says that the defendant issued a leather-soled pair of shoes to the Plaintiff to perform her duties in the factory as aforesaid.

15 An application was made by Counsel for the plaintiff, during his address to amend paragraph 2 of the Reply to delete the words "leather-soled" and to substitute the words "rubber-soled" therefor. No objections were raised and the amendment was granted as prayed.

16 Assessment of the evidence and the issue of liability

17 There is no dispute that the plaintiff fell and received her injuries whilst she was in the dairy section of the first defendant's factory. The issue for consideration therefore, is whether or not she was lawfully in the dairy section at the material time.

18 The plaintiff testified that once the workers had achieved their target production for the week, each worker was entitled to and was given a package of drinks and a bag of buns on a Thursday afternoon before they left for home. She further testified that the packers who were assigned to the bakery section were permitted to go and collect the drinks in the dairy section. She had done this on the 21 ^st September 1989, and it was whilst she was "coming out" that she slipped and fell. She denied under cross-examination that she was told to collect the drinks at the door for the dairy section. She also said that she was wearing the company's rubber sole shoes at the material time. This was not challenged at all, under cross-examination. On the other hand, persons who were employed in the dairy section were provided with water boots. The difference in footwear lies therefore in their height and possibly grip.

19 The defendant maintained on the pleadings that the plaintiff was not authorized or required to work in or to go in the dairy area and as such she was not issued with footwear appropriate for workers in that section. Junior...