• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

$88,200 not enough forPRC who lost fingers

MarrickG

Alfrescian
Loyal
a8-2.jpg


Lost fingers: worker wins suit

A CHINA worker who lost three fingers at work was offered $88,200 in Workmen's Compensation, but he said no thanks, and jointly sued his employer and another company.

Mr Ma HongFei's decision was vindicated last week, when he won an unusual judgment in court - he won one part of the suit, but lost the other.

But though he lost part of his case, he will not have to pay legal costs. The judge ordered that these will be borne by the company he sued successfully.

Mr Ma was worked at a site in Gul Road, Tuas two years ago. He was using a grinder when a 4m-long metal pipe fell from above and hit the index, ring and little fingers on his left hand. The impact thrust his fingers into the grinder, and crushed them.

He was taken to the National University Hospital for treatment, but doctors could not save his fingers, and they were amputated.

After investigations by the Ministry of Manpower, Mr Ma was offered Workmen's Compensation. But he refused, as he felt the sum was too low for the permanent disability he had suffered.

Mr Ma decided to sue both his employer, U-Hin Manufacturing, and the company he was sub-contracted to, BT-Engineering, which fabricates offshore equipment.

Last week, Justice Lai Siu Chiu found BT-Engineering negligent. However, U-Hin was not to blame, she said, as it was merely a labour supplier and could not be blamed.

BT-Engineering, on the other hand, was held liable because a temporary shoring at its worksite that would have held the pipe in place had been removed.

She thus ordered the company to pay damages, which would be assessed by the Registrar, as well as costs.
 
Top