Stacks Law Firm is a leading Australian legal service provider with more than 250 people operating locally in many Australian communities.
We are committed to supporting the legal needs of everyday Australians and businesses across every stage of life.
In 1974 a woman secured an office job in a large Australian
organisation. Her duties required her to perform typing work on a
coding machine.
She was provided with a metal chair that had a padded seat, a
backrest and a left-sided armrest, but not a right-sided armrest.
The employee's keyboard was positioned at lower than elbow
height on her right-hand side, thereby causing the woman's
posture to bend to the right.
The employee had been trained to perform around 10,000
keystrokes per hour. She worked at her own speed and her job was
very repetitive.
The employee had an option of moving the keyboard to a higher
position and her employer had told her to do this, but she ignored
her employer's instructions and kept using the keyboard in a
way which ultimately led to the injuries.
Employee diagnosed with tennis elbow and suffers intermittent
pain
In late 1977 the woman was diagnosed with having lateral
epicondylitis, also known as "tennis elbow", in both of
her arms. For a time, she also suffered from medial epicondylitis,
or "golfer's elbow".
The woman suffered ongoing intermittent pain in both arms, with
the pain being more pronounced in her right arm.
The woman sued her employer, claiming that it had been negligent
by structuring her work in a way that exposed her to the risk of
injury, which in fact eventuated.
case a - The case for the employee
case b - The case for the employer
The workstation provided to me by my employer forced me to use
my arms in a twisted and awkward posture. This and the repetitive
nature of my work led to my injuries.
The injuries I suffered after years of working for the employer
were reasonably foreseeable by my employer.
My employer, acting reasonably, should have provided me with
proper training on how to use the work system in a relaxed and
correct manner, so as to reduce the risk of injury, rather than
simply making suggestions about how to use the equipment.
My employer, acting reasonably, should also have properly
supervised and monitored my use of the work system to ensure that
correct behaviours were being followed.
The court should find that my employer was negligent, because
it did not ensure that I used the equipment in a way that would
reduce the risk of injury.
We told the employee to adopt a relaxed posture when using the
workplace system.
We told her to sit in the most comfortable way when using the
equipment.
We told her to move the keyboard to a higher position, so that
she would not be leaning down to the right.
It is not our fault that the employee used the equipment in a
way that led to her injuries, since we told her not to have the
keyboard below elbow height, but she ignored us and kept
positioning it in this position.
The court should find that we were not negligent, because we
told her how to use the equipment to reduce the risk of
injury.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.