MO PO v. YAT FAI ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

MO PO v. YAT FAI ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

The court found the nail-rebound eye injury was not a reasonably foreseeable risk of ordinary nailing work; Regulation 43 did not apply; selection of battens was not shown to be defective or unreasonably dangerous; therefore no duty arose to provide goggles for the task and defendants were not negligent; claim dismissed.

Citation
MO PO v. YAT FAI ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: MO PO; 1st Defendant: YAT FAI ENGINEERING LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: KWONG KEY CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 April 2006
Case Number
HCPI405/2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action No. 405 of 2005 / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; judgment for the Defendants
Legal Topics
Provision of Protective Equipment, Goggles, Foreseeability, Selection of Materials (wooden Battens), Breach of Employment Contract, Damages Quantum, Expert Medical Evidence
Source Language
EN
Negligence Employers' Liability Construction Law Personal Injury Occupational Safety Provision of Protective Equipment Goggles Foreseeability +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MO PO

Plaintiff

YAT FAI ENGINEERING LIMITED

1st Defendant

KWONG KEY CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action No. 405 of 2005 / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether employer was negligent in failing to provide goggles
  2. 2 Whether defendants were negligent in selection of wooden battens (hard nodule/knot causing rebound)
  3. 3 Whether the risk of a nail rebounding and causing eye injury was reasonably foreseeable

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the nail-rebound eye injury was not a reasonably foreseeable risk of ordinary nailing work; Regulation 43 did not apply; selection of battens was not shown to be defective or unreasonably dangerous; therefore no duty arose to provide goggles for the task and defendants were not negligent; claim dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; judgment for the Defendants

Orders

  • Defendants entitled to costs to be taxed on a party and party basis (order nisi)
  • Plaintiff entitled to legal aid taxation of costs if in receipt of a legal aid certificate