Hospital records show conflicting accounts of how worker sustained back injuries at work
A Hong Kong court recently dealt with a workplace injury case where a technical coordinator sustained back injuries while working at his employer's warehouse.
The worker claimed his injuries resulted from uneven, damaged flooring, seeking damages for his employer's alleged breach of duty to provide a safe working environment.
The worker argued he had repeatedly complained to management about dangerous floor conditions before his accident occurred. He maintained that while performing duties requiring frequent bending, squatting and standing, he lost balance due to the floor surface and suffered serious back injuries.
His legal case relied on negligence, breach of employment contract duties, and violations of occupational safety legislation.
The employer disputed these claims, denying the alleged complaints and any breach of safety duties.
The company questioned whether the floor conditions caused the worker's injuries. The case turned on witness credibility and proving the connection between injuries and workplace conditions.
Background of the workplace incident
The incident occurred on 3 February 2017 when the worker, employed since August 2007, was working alone at his company's warehouse. The battery supply company had rented the premises since 2007-2008 for storing rechargeable batteries.
The 50-year-old technical coordinator was "unpacking, inspecting and re-arranging the batteries delivered to and laid out on the floor" when injured.
His work required him to "bend down, squat and stand up repeatedly" while handling about 30 batteries on a wooden pallet occupying 1.1 by 0.8 metres of floor space.
The worker's legal case relied on negligence, breach of employment contract duties, workplace safety regulations, and occupier liability laws.
The company allegedly "failed to ensure that [the worker] was reasonably safe at work with regard to the condition of the floor."
The parties agreed on compensation totalling HK$500,000 plus employees' compensation of HK$1,008,083.74 before trial, leaving only liability to be determined.
The employer denied the worker's claims about floor conditions and disputed receiving any prior complaints about workplace safety.
Floor conditions sparked major dispute
The warehouse floor had a plastic layer covering that had "admittedly been damaged or worn away over the years," creating patches where covering was missing and "loosened or detached plastic pieces."
Both parties acknowledged the surface was "certainly not smooth," but disagreed whether conditions caused the worker's accident.
Measurements showed "the unevenness in terms of height difference created by the various patches of worn away plastic layer ranged from 1 mm to 1.5 mm."
The worker initially "accepted that was the degree of unevenness of the floor surface at the time of the accident."
His legal team argued conditions were worse, with loose pieces stacking up and edges curling, but the court found "such alleged additional conditions are not clearly, if at all, depicted even in the photographs taken in 2017."
The company director confirmed "the floor had not undergone renovation since August 2007, including after the alleged accident."
An independent transportation contractor who visited 20 days monthly corroborated this account.
The court found the employer's witnesses "straightforward and believable" in their consistent testimony about unchanging floor conditions.
Medical records showed changing story
Hospital records showed inconsistencies in the worker's accident description. The Accident & Emergency Department noted his injury occurred during work but "the mechanism of injury was said to be unknown," recording it as "non-traumatic."
Later records described "sudden onset of back pain after resuming from a bent position during work," while another hospital recorded he "sprained his back while pulling heavy objects."
More problematic were his official workplace injury documents. In the required injury report form, he described attending to batteries when he "suddenly fell forward without knowing why," with "no indication of any medium causing that."
Six months later, he wrote to his employer stating he "suddenly lost balance and fell forward," again omitting any reference to floor conditions.
The court noted that "contemporaneous documents did not suggest that it occurred to [the worker] that he fell because of any extraneous physical factor, let alone the floor condition."
The worker explained he later figured out the accident with legal assistance, connecting his fall to the floor conditions only after consulting lawyers.
Worker's account raised red flags
The worker's account changed during legal proceedings. His first witness statement in 2021 maintained he lost balance and fell while standing from a squatting position due to uneven flooring.
However, his second statement in November 2022 introduced a different version where he fell twice - first while standing, then again when stepping on uneven flooring while trying to regain balance.
When questioned about waiting until his second statement to mention the double fall, the worker gave conflicting explanations, suggesting the detail was insignificant while claiming difficulty articulating events in earlier correspondence.
The court found this unconvincing, particularly since the worker claimed he had provided full instructions about the double fall to lawyers by January 2019, yet this detail appeared nowhere in documents until late 2022.
The court questioned whether the worker and his representatives were "constructing or merely re-constructing the cause of the accident."
The evolution from not knowing why he fell to attributing it to specific floor conditions raised concerns about whether this represented genuine recollection or after-the-fact construction of a legal case.
Employer safety duties under scrutiny
The court examined whether the company breached its duty to provide a reasonably safe working environment. Under Hong Kong law, reasonable foreseeability "hinges upon knowledge, actual and constructive, of such risk on the part of the employer."
The worker claimed he repeatedly complained to the company director about floor conditions, but the director denied receiving such complaints.
Given floor unevenness limited to 1-1.5 millimetre variations, the court questioned whether such conditions would prompt safety concerns.
The court noted "serious doubt arises as to the inherent credibility of the alleged concern on the part of [the worker] to lodge the alleged complaint, let alone repeatedly."
No prior accidents involved floor conditions, and the worker had completed similar work at other floor locations without incident that morning.
The company director explained that floor renovation would require landlord consent, significant expense, and business disruption.
The court concluded this "would have been out of proportion, and therefore beyond the reasonable duty expected," given the minimal unevenness found.
The court noted floor conditions were obvious enough that they didn't require specific warnings, and the worker could take care by wearing appropriate footwear, which he had done.
Court completely rejected the claim
The court dismissed the worker's claim, finding he failed to prove the essential elements. The court concluded: "I am not satisfied that [the worker] manages to prove that he sustained a back injury because of the uneven floor surface where he was standing at the time."
The court determined floor variations of only millimetres could not reasonably cause the described accident, particularly given the worker wore sneakers with 20-millimetre thick soles.
Regarding the employer's legal obligations, the court found: "All the circumstances considered, I do not find that [the employer] was in breach of its duties in preventing an accident which could arise out of such a condition of the floor surface."
The court emphasised that safety obligations must be proportionate to the actual risk presented by minimal floor variations obvious to workplace occupants.
The credibility issues proved decisive. The court stated: "I find [the worker] fails to prove liability."
Despite agreed damages exceeding HK$1.5 million, the worker received nothing due to his failure to establish employer responsibility. The court ordered the worker to pay the employer's legal costs.
This case demonstrates how inconsistent injury reporting can undermine workplace claims. The worker's initial reports made no mention of floor conditions, only later attributing his fall to these factors with legal assistance. HR should ensure thorough, consistent incident documentation from the outset.
