Flight attendant says there were hazardous conditions in the work area
The General Division of Singapore's High Court recently dealt with a case involving a worker who sought damages for injuries sustained during his employment with a major company.
The worker claimed that his injuries resulted from his employer's failure to provide a safe workplace and system of work. He argued that a hazardous condition in his work area led to his fall and subsequent injuries, preventing him from continuing in his role.
This case brought to light important questions about workplace safety, the extent of an employer's duty of care, and what constitutes reasonable safety measures in a challenging work environment.
The incident at the heart of this case occurred on 6 September 2019, when a flight attendant from Singapore Airlines fell in the galley of an aircraft during a long-haul flight from San Francisco to Singapore.
The flight, SQ 31, was scheduled to take off from San Francisco at 11.25am on 5 September 2019 (San Francisco time) or 2.25am on 6 September 2019 (Singapore time). It was scheduled to land in Singapore at 7.10pm on 6 September 2019 (Singapore time), with a total flight time of about 16¾ hours.
The worker, a Malaysian citizen born in June 1988, was 31 at the time of the incident and 35 at the time of trial in 2024. He claimed he slipped on a greasy or slippery area on the floor, resulting in injuries and disabilities that prevented him from continuing his work as a flight attendant.
Singapore Airlines acknowledged that the worker had fallen but denied any breach of duty of care. They disputed the existence of a slippery area on the floor and argued that the fall had not caused the worker's claimed disabilities.
The worker had been employed by the airline since 11 April 2016 as a flight attendant on a five-year contract at a salary of $6,058 per month. Unfortunately, his experience with the airline had not been smooth. Prior to this incident, he had suffered six other workplace injuries between April 2017 and April 2019, ranging from minor bruises to injuries requiring surgery.
The aircraft assigned to the flight was an Airbus A350, with a cabin crew of 13 members. The worker was assigned the "C2" position, also known as the "galley steward".
His duties included using both aisles of the aircraft as well as the galley to perform his tasks, securing all items in the galley, and ensuring that the galley was dry and clean.
The court examined what constitutes a reasonable standard of care for employers. The judge referred to established legal principles, noting that an employer must take the same care for its employees' safety as would be expected of a reasonable and prudent employer.
The court cited a key passage from a previous case:
"[T]he overall test is still the conduct of the reasonable and prudent employer, taking positive thought for the safety of [their] workers in the light of what [they] know or ought to know..."
The court said that this standard requires employers to consider the likelihood and potential consequences of injuries against the effectiveness and practicality of preventive measures.
A significant part of the airline's defence was its Cabin Crew Readiness Programme (CCRP), an intensive safety training programme for all new cabin crew. The CCRP included training on identifying potential risks of inflight work accidents and how to minimize their occurrence.
Specifically, the CCRP trained cabin crew to immediately remove any spillage they found in any part of the aircraft on their own initiative and clean the affected area. If unable to remove the spillage, they were trained to report the issue to a supervisor.
The court heard evidence from several experienced crew members who spoke about the effectiveness of this training. One chief steward with 29 years of service said he had never seen anyone slip and fall on the galley floor in one of the airline's aircraft.
The airline's Safety, Security, Quality and Health Department (SSQH) also issued periodic reminders to cabin crew to reinforce their CCRP training. For example, in June 2018, SSQH issued a reminder alerting cabin crew about the risk of sustaining injuries by slipping and falling on board the aircraft.
The court faced the task of weighing the worker's account against that of the employer and other crew members. The judge found several inconsistencies in the worker's testimony, which affected his credibility.
For example, the worker's account of how he dealt with the alleged grease patch changed during cross-examination. Initially, he said he had immediately informed a supervisor about the grease patch. Later, he said he had first attempted to clean it himself before reporting it.
The court noted:
"These variances... lead me to reject as untrue [the worker's] oral evidence that a foreign substance was present on the surface of the galley floor that rendered it slippery."
This finding significantly impacted the outcome of the case, as it undermined a crucial element of the worker's claim.
After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court dismissed the worker's claim. The judge concluded that there was no slippery area on the aircraft floor as alleged by the worker. Even if such an area had existed, the court found that the employer had not breached its duty of care.
The judge stated:
"I am therefore satisfied that [the employer] exercised the same care for the personal safety of [the worker] on 6 September 2019 as would be exercised by a reasonable and prudent employer applying [their] mind positively to the safety of [their] employees in the light of [their] superior knowledge of the risks of the employment."
The court further emphasised:
"[The employer] wholly discharged [their] duty of care to [the worker]. [They] provided for [the worker] both a safe system of work and a safe place of work. Although [the worker's] injuries are unfortunate, they have not arisen from any breach of the duty of care that [the employer] owes to him."
The judge's final remarks summarize the key points of the decision:
"I dismiss [the worker's] claim because: (a) I find that [the employer] has, despite not bearing the burden of proof in this action, proven on the balance of probabilities that there was no slippery area on the galley floor. (b) Even if, contrary to my finding, there was a slippery area on the galley floor, [the employer] did not breach [their] duty of care to [the worker]."
This decision highlights the value of maintaining thorough documentation of safety measures and training programmes, as these can be crucial in defending against workplace injury claims. It also emphasises the importance of consistent testimony in workplace injury cases, as inconsistencies can significantly impact a worker's credibility and, consequently, the outcome of their claim.
