Worker seeks massive compensation after being pushed off platform by senior manager during shift
A District Court in Hong Kong recently dealt with an employment dispute involving workplace violence, vicarious liability, and employer responsibility when a supervisor was seriously injured during a workplace altercation with his senior manager.
The worker argued that his employer should be held responsible for the assault committed by his supervisor, claiming the incident arose directly from work-related matters and occurred during normal business hours.
He sought substantial compensation for his injuries, arguing that the company had created the conditions that led to the violent confrontation.
The case raised questions about the limits of employer liability when workplace disputes escalate to physical violence and whether workers can seek reduced compensation when they participate in workplace altercations.
Physical altercation during work dispute
On 23 February 2017, a warehouse supervisor and his senior supervisor became involved in a heated dispute about work performance at a loading platform.
The worker had been employed since August 2011 under a written contract, while his assailant held a senior supervisory position overseeing multiple staff members.
The senior manager "had a dispute with [the worker] and [a colleague] over their working attitude at the loading platform of the warehouse," according to court findings.
Another colleague became involved when he tried to intervene in the confrontation that arose from the senior supervisor's dissatisfaction with staff performance.
During the altercation, the senior supervisor assaulted the worker, causing him to fall from the 1.5-metre-high loading platform.
According to criminal court records, the senior supervisor "punched [the worker's] abdomen at the edge of the loading platform."
The worker suffered fractures to his right wrist bones. Both employees faced criminal proceedings, with the senior supervisor receiving 140 hours of community service and the worker being fined $4,000 for common assault.
Employment relationships become legally complicated
The case became complicated due to disputes over which company was actually the worker's employer.
The worker had originally signed an employment contract with one company in 2011, but a related company had been making Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) contributions for several employees from January 2015 onwards.
The original employer initially admitted the worker was their employee but in August 2020, the company's lawyers suddenly changed their stance and argued that the worker was employed by the related company.
As the court noted, this "change of stance came very belatedly, ie two years after the Answer was filed and one year after the termination of [the worker's] employment."
The court examined extensive documentation including the original 2011 employment contract, salary adjustment letters, warning letters, and the worker's termination notice - all bearing the original company's name.
Despite MPF contributions being made by the related company, the court found that the original employer remained the true employer, noting there was "no evidence as to the arrangement or agreement" between the companies regarding MPF payments.
Employer liability principles under scrutiny
The court applied established legal principles to determine whether the employer should be held responsible for the senior supervisor's assault.
The assessment involved examining both the employment relationship and the connection between the wrongful act and job duties.
Hong Kong courts had previously established that employers can be held liable when there is a "close connection" between an employee's wrongful conduct and their job duties.
The court explained that employers should bear responsibility when "the injury done by the servant must involve a risk sufficiently inherent in or characteristic of the employer's business."
The court found that the assault occurred during a work-related dispute about performance issues, with the senior supervisor acting within his role when the confrontation began.
The judge determined that "when [the senior supervisor] assaulted [the worker], he was [the worker's] supervisor and was tasked with supervising [the worker] and his work performance."
The court emphasised that the senior supervisor had "a heated dispute with [the worker] over his working attitude," establishing the connection between the assault and employment duties.
Contributory negligence defence falls short
The employer's insurer attempted to argue that the worker was partly to blame for his injuries, suggesting his actions contributed by failing to keep a safe distance from the fight.
However, the court firmly rejected this defence, establishing an important precedent for workplace violence cases.
The judge ruled that when someone deliberately commits assault, the victim cannot be blamed for failing to protect themselves adequately.
Following English court guidance, the court held that "the intention to injure someone in a case of assault negatives all excuses, and thus the defence of contributory negligence is not available to such a claim."
The court reasoned that where someone "intentionally causes a claimant to apprehend immediate unlawful violence or sustain unlawful personal violence, it would seem unfair to say that a claimant whose failure to take care of his own safety was a cause of his injury."
This ruling means victims of workplace violence cannot have their compensation reduced based on their actions during an assault.
Medical evidence reveals injury exaggeration
The court assessed the worker's injuries and their long-term impact, though it found some claimed injuries were exaggerated.
When the worker attended the hospital's emergency department immediately after the incident, "his chief complaint was right wrist and right lower chest wall pain.
He did not complain to the doctor that he had any back or lower limb pain."
The emergency department records stated there was "no other body pain. No weakness/numbness" beyond the wrist and chest injuries.
However, the court accepted that the worker had suffered legitimate injuries to his right wrist, including displaced fractures requiring extensive treatment.
Medical experts agreed that these injuries resulted in ongoing weakness and numbness preventing him from returning to his physically demanding supervisory role.
The court found his claims about back and leg pain were not supported by medical evidence and concluded he had exaggerated these aspects.
Damages awarded despite injury disputes
The court awarded total compensation of $1,865,740, including $250,000 for pain, suffering and loss of quality of life, over $1 million for past and future loss of earnings, and additional amounts for medical expenses.
The worker, aged 58 at trial, could no longer perform his previous warehouse supervisor role due to ongoing wrist problems.
Medical evidence showed he could perform "more sedentary jobs such as security guard, watchman, office cleaner and office assistant," but at significantly reduced wages.
The court ultimately determined that "the [senior supervisor's] tortious act in assaulting [the worker] was so closely connected with his employment that it is fair to make [the employer] vicariously liable."
The court ordered that the employer and senior supervisor "pay [the worker's] damages in the sum of $1,865,740" while dismissing claims against the related company.
The court also ruled that "the [worker's] damages should not be reduced," reinforcing that victims of workplace violence cannot have their compensation reduced for defending themselves during an assault.
