High Court of Ireland Decisions

1. The Plaintiff alleges in the Statement of Claim delivered herein on the 22nd June, 1993 that between the months of June 1984 and September 1985 she suffered personal injuries, loss and damage as a result of the negligence of the Defendants.

2. The Plaintiff was born on the 10th June, 1965. On the 18th June, 1984 she started work on a temporary basis as an employee of the Midland Health Board at their laundry premises which was and is attached to St. Loman's Hospital, Mullingar, Co. Westmeath. On the 26th July, 1985 she was made a permanent employee of the Health Board.

3. She continued to work in the laundry premises until she felt she was no longer able to do so by virtue of a back complaint.

4. The laundry premises at St. Loman's Hospital in Mullingar services a number of hospitals under the control of the Midland Health Board. Initially the Plaintiff was assigned to light duties when she commenced her employment. Then sometime later she wasassigned to working on large washing machines in the wash area. Some of these machines could take up to 200 lbs. of laundry in weight for washing.

5. The Plaintiff complains that because of the repetitive nature of the work that she was employed to do that she suffered a serious injury to her back..

6. The work, it is accepted by all, was heavy manual work. It involved loading heavy laundry, items such as garments, sheets, towels, etc., into large washing machines. Two washing machines did not spin dry the laundry. When the laundry in these machines was cleaned the Plaintiff, on her own, had to remove the wet laundry from the machines by hand. Wet laundry could be as much as three times heavier than dry laundry. On removing the wet laundry from the machine, it was then placed on a trolley and moved to a drying machine. At the drying machine the laundry had then to be removed from the trolley and placed in the drying machine and when dry the same laundry was then removed from the drying machine for ironing and folding.

7. The work that the Plaintiff was mainly engaged on related to putting laundry into the washing machines, removing the same laundry from the washing machines and then placing the same laundry in drying machines. This work was mostly continuous during each day and week that she worked with the Defendants.

8. During the course of her work she developed low back pain. In October 1986 she went to see her local general practitioner, namely, Dr. Fagan in Mullingar and complained to him of her back pain. He certified her unfit for work from the 22nd October, 1986 to the 3rd November, 1986. She then returned to the same work but again she was unable for that work and he certified her again as being unfit for work from the 11th November, 1986 to the 30th November, 1986. From the 5th January, 1987 she was put on light work in the laundry premises, that is she was working at a sewing machine. She continued on the sewing machine until the beginning of April 1987 and when she was asked by Mr. Stout, the Manager in the laundry, to return to heavy work at the washing machines. This she refused to do so because she did not feel up to it and she then ceased to work and eventually resigned on the 25th September, 1987.

9. Dr. Fagan whom she went to see in October 1986 had her lumbo-sacral spine X-rayed and this revealed no abnormality. He subsequently sent her for physiotherapy and eventually sent her to an orthopaedic surgeon, namely, Mr. Fred Kenny, who attended at that time at the Mullingar County Hospital. He, Mr. Kenny reported back to Dr. Fagan that he could find nothing seriously wrong with the Plaintiff's back.

10. In the Autumn of 1987 the Plaintiff went to England where she got a sedentary job and her back was not then too troublesome. In 1991 she married. In 1992 she was referred by her local general practitioner to a spinal surgeon in London in relation to her complaint of back pain. She was eventually seen by a Mr. Henry Crock who was at that time a spinal surgeon practising in London. Mr. Crock carried out a disogram on the Plaintiff's back on the 17th March, 1992 and this revealed an internal disc disruption. Following upon this diagnosis, she had two subsequent back operations and despite these two operations her back still troubles her.

11. The Plaintiff's alleges that the Midland Health Board, her employers, were negligent in that they

12. The Plaintiff in evidence stated that she replaced a man, namely, Christy Dalton who had worked on the washing machines that she was assigned to. She stated that the work that she was employed to do involved quite a lot of bending, pulling and tugging at wet laundry and heavy sheets. She stated that the doors in one of the washing machines was very difficult to open and that she had to struggle to open this particular door. She stated that she got no formal training and that she was only shown how to operate the machine and how much powder it was necessary to put into the machine for washing.

13. It appears that during the period that the Plaintiff was employed in the laundry that her mother and sister were also employed in the same laundry.

14. There were in fact up to twenty people working in the laundry premises. There were some men and mostly women employed there. This work was sought after by the female employees because they were paid the same rate as the male employees. All the workers in the laundry premises were unionised and the shop steward at that time was a Miss Monica Smith. The Plaintiff alleges that no assistance was available to her except for some patients who were more of a nuisance than a help. She stated in evidence that she was the kind of a person who when told to do a job, did it as she felt that it would be a black mark against her if she failed to obey such a direction in relation to her work.

15. Mr. Barry Tennyson, a consultant engineer, who gave evidence on her behalf, stated that the work that the Plaintiff was employed to do was too hard for a female employee.

16. Evidence for the Defence was given by Miss Monica Smith who was a shop steward in the laundry premises from January 1985 to November 1986. She described the work being done by the Plaintiff as heavy work. She also stated that when clothes became knotted or entangled in the machines that it was sometimes necessary to seek assistance to unknot and to untangle such clothes. She stated that help for employees was always forthcoming in the laundry and that it was not a black mark against an employee if she sought assistance. Miss Smith stated that the usual way to train new employees was to put them working with the person who was about to leave the machine so that the new employees could familiarise themselves with the workings of the particular machine.

17. It seems to me from the evidence that there was an arrangement with Miss Smith's union that female employees should be allowed to do the same work as male employees in the laundry premises and that the pay for employees was the same as for male employees.

18. Miss Smith has no recollection of receiving any complaint from the Plaintiff in relation to the absence of assistance being made available to her.

19. Mr. James Stout, the laundry manager at the time when the Plaintiff was employed, gave evidence on behalf of the Defendants. He stated that there was no formal training for new employees but that new staff was placed with experienced staff so as to learn how the work should be done. He stated that he received no complaints from the Plaintiff about lack of assistance being made available to her and neither did he receive any complaint from her mother or her sister during the period that the Plaintiff was employed in the laundry premises. He stated that there was no difficulty in an employee getting assistance from a fellow employee at any time at work. Mr. Stout was aware that from October 1986 that the Plaintiff suffered from back strain and when she returned from sick leave he assumed that she was then fit for her usual work. He described the work that she had to do as difficult and arduous and he said that he did at times receive complaints from employees of the nature of the work that they were employed to do.

20. Mr. Stout accepted that the wash house jobs were not very popular and that it was normally done by men but that the union had ruled that it had to be done by men and/or women.

21. The Plaintiff suffered a back injury which certainly resulted from the repetitive nature of the work that she was obliged to do. This was work that the Plaintiff's own union had accepted should be done by women employees. Miss Monica Smith, the union officer, stated that help was always forthcoming if sought by an employee.

22. It seems to me that the training involved, namely, working with other employees, was adequate in the circumstances.

23. So while the Plaintiff suffered a bad back injury at work more than seventeen years ago, it does not appear to me that this injury was or is attributable to any negligence on the part of the Defendants, their servants and/or agents.

24. So in those circumstances I am obliged to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim.