WRULD DB-Plaintiff: Mrs Lindsay

Case	Task	Injury	Date	Court	Judgment for
Lindsay & Johnson - v - Claremont Garments Limited	Ironing	De Quervain's Syndrome	27 Jan 1998	Newcastle upon Tyne County	Defendant

In this case, the two Claimants unsuccessfully sought damages for injuries allegedly caused by ironing garments at a rate of about 25 garments per hour. In his Judgment on the 27th January 1998, HH Judge Whitburn says:

The movements required of Mrs. Lindsay and said to have been causative of her injury were the crab like movements of the left hand. This was but a part of her job. There was, in my judgment, no rapid repetitive actions nor twisting and gripping movements required. There was no forceful use of the muscles in a repetitive way, nor were the muscles used at great speed for prolonged periods, nor was she working at the limit of her range of movement. There was nothing faulty in the design of or the supply of the equipment or plant. The targets set out for the work were carefully worked out and accepted by the workers. There was, I find, no pressure by the management for the workforce to meet unreasonable targets.

There was minimal force, no postural difficulties. I find nothing in the task that she had to carry out that would alert the reasonable employer to any danger. There was, I accept, no reason why any reasonable employer could be expected to suspect that the system of work adopted would lead to the type of injuries sustained. There was an obligation, I find, to look at the task of pressing anew when complaints of pain and difficulty were made, but I find that even if that had been carried out, as the defendants concede, in about December, 1991 there was nothing that could or should have been altered in the system of work.

In Mrs. Johnson's case minimal force was required to depress the membrane switch of the industrial iron used. No criticism, in my judgment, could be made of the equipment provided or the targets set. The complaint was of repetitive action of the vertical steaming movement. There was proper equipment provided. No movements were at the limit of the range of movement. There were no postural difficulties. The work station was well designed I find that in her case as well the three key elements of undesirable force, bad posture and high repetition were not present.

For the defendants it was conceded that their duty was to carry out a review of the pressing task in December, 1991. There is now the formal obligation imposed as from the 1st January, 1993 by the Management Regulations, 1992 and the Manual Handling Regulations, 1992. It is accepted that by that date the provision of elasticated supports and the complaints of arm pain by certain of the employees should have prompted a review, as would the state of knowledge that a reasonable employer within the garment industry ought to have had. I accept that had this been done no fault would have been found in the system of work or the equipment at the factory.

V1.01

Last updated: 16/10/2009