The problem of RSI in a keyboard operator has now been taken before the House of Lords in the following case. PICKFORD v IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PLC [1998] 1 WLR 1181 In this case also, the majority of their Lordships found against the appellant typist. In the view of Lord Hope, speaking for the majority of the House, the case turned on the evidence presented to the trial judge as to whether it was a foreseeable risk that a person spending most of her working day at a keyboard would contract a recognised illness. His Lordship opined, beginning at p 1196: : In order to succeed the claimant must establish that the injury suffered was the consequence of the defendant’s conduct. The claimant will not be compensated for damage that would have occurred even if the defendant’s conduct had been faultless. That is to say, it is not sufficient for the claimant to show that the defendant was negligent and the claimant has suffered damage.

doi:10.4324/9781843140504-99

Chapter

The problem of RSI in a keyboard operator has now been taken before the House of Lords in the following case. PICKFORD v IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PLC [1998] 1 WLR 1181 In this case also, the majority of their Lordships found against the appellant typist. In the view of Lord Hope, speaking for the majority of the House, the case turned on the evidence presented to the trial judge as to whether it was a foreseeable risk that a person spending most of her working day at a keyboard would contract a recognised illness. His Lordship opined, beginning at p 1196:

Chapter

The problem of RSI in a keyboard operator has now been taken before the House of Lords in the following case. PICKFORD v IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PLC [1998] 1 WLR 1181 In this case also, the majority of their Lordships found against the appellant typist. In the view of Lord Hope, speaking for the majority of the House, the case turned on the evidence presented to the trial judge as to whether it was a foreseeable risk that a person spending most of her working day at a keyboard would contract a recognised illness. His Lordship opined, beginning at p 1196:

ABSTRACT

In this case also, the majority of their Lordships found against the appellant typist. In the view of Lord Hope, speaking for the majority of the House, the case turned on the evidence presented to the trial judge as to whether it was a foreseeable risk that a person spending most of her working day at a keyboard would contract a recognised illness. His Lordship opined, beginning at p 1196:

It will be clear from this summary that the issues which the judge had to decide were all issues of fact. The answers which he gave to them were the result of his assessment of all the evidence, after seeing and hearing all the witnesses. He had to resolve an acute conflict in the expert medical evidence. Another disputed question which he had to resolve was what to make of the respondent’s evidence. This was important because of the account which she gave as to the development of her condition and as to the nature and amount of her typing work.