Case Document

DCPI 1744/2013

香港特別行政區

區域法院

傷亡訴訟2013年第1744號

--------------------

原告人	MAN YUN FEI ANGELA
對
第一被告人	CHAN SEE KING
第二被告人	THE HONG KONG SOCIETY FOR
	REHABILITATION

--------------------

主審法官：區域法院暫委法官譚利祥法庭聆訊

聆訊日期： 2016年11月2至3日及12月15日

判決書日期： 2017年1月3日

----------------

判決書

----------------

1.這是原告人就一宗發生於2010年10月12日的交通意外（“該意外”）的人身傷亡索償的案件。

2.本案的爭議事項包括：－

(1) 原告人是否採取不正常病患角色（abnormal sick role）；

(2) 該意外有否引致原告人受傷；

(3) 法律上脆弱頭骨的原則（thin skull rule）是否適用於本案。

背境

3.該意外是由復康巴士NL 5954（“復康巴士”）在轉線時引起，原告人為復康巴士其中一名乘客。

4.當時復康巴士由俊宏軒左轉入天瑞路，向天瑞邨方向行駛，左轉期間見前面一線有巴士靠站，第一被告人意圖轉入二線。轉線時復康巴士與私家車PF 9231發生碰撞。

5.復康巴士的右車尾擦到私家車的左邊車頭及倒後鏡。第一被告人聲稱，當時復康巴士與私家車時速均為大約15公里，兩架車碰撞及損傷極輕微。

6.當時復康巴士上有兩名乘客，其中一名為本案原告人，第二名為張偉健先生（“張先生”）。張先生所受的損傷非常輕微，當日於急症室接受診治之後便可出院，即日回家。

7.當時原告人乘坐在電動輪椅之上，電動輪椅上有啫喱防震軟墊（cushion），原告人繫有安全帶，第一被告人亦有將原告人所乘坐之電動輪椅繫上復康巴士上的固定輪椅安全鎖。

8.同日原告人被送往屯門醫院急症室診治。根據屯門醫院的醫療報告，當時原告人形容意外只是輕微的震盪（“just vibration”）。

9.屯門醫院的記錄指出，當時原告人聲稱首先其右手麻痺，短暫時間後，其左手麻痺。

10.作為背景，原告人在2006年11月19日，即大約在四年前，曾遇上另一宗與第一及第二被告人無關的電車交通意外（“電車意外”）。而原告人聲稱，電車意外已造成原告人種種傷害。

原告人是否採取不正常病患角色

11.按2012年3月1日的黃重光醫生（“黃醫生”）及周樂怡醫生（“周醫生”）的聯合補充醫療報告，第22段結論中兩位醫生同意，原告人有表現不正常病患者角色的現像。第22段內容引述如下：－

“To conclude, we concur that Ms Man shows the phenomenon of abnormal sick role. In particular we agree that abnormal sick role is not a psychiatric disorder and as such whatever symptoms it shows are not matter of genuine psychiatric order.”

12.按2015年3月27日的傅偉基醫生（“傅醫生”）的醫療報告，第11頁的評論內容如下：－

“2. Actually the clinical picture of Ms. Man is very similar to her alleged accident in 2006. Again the collision should be a low velocity one. From her description on the mechanism of injury, there was no definite bodily contusion and just some vibration or jolting. The energy of trauma in her case cannot be high. For this kind of lower energy trauma, it is quite unusual to have such severe symptoms that persist for more than four years. Also, according to Ms. Man there was no direct head injury during the accident. From record available there was no sign of head injury such as bruise or swelling. Therefore she should not have suffered head injury or post-concussion syndrome.

3. According to orthopaedic surgeon Dr. Ma King Hay Arthur’s report, during her admission there was no nick pain and head injury. There was no sphincter disturbance. It further confirms that the injury was not severe otherwise there should be some signs in her neck after the accident.

4. According to various medical reports during her stay in acute ward of TMH she was found to have fluctuated muscle power which is very suggestive of non-organic component. She was also found to have subjective decrease sensation over left side of body. However all radiological studies including X ray and MRI revealed no abnormal findings. SSEP (Electrophysiological study for detection of nerve problem) again revealed unremarkable finding. Her complaints are not supported by the objective tests.”

13.簡單來說，傅醫生認為交通意外之時，她的頭部並無碰撞，所以不應該有頭部受傷或腦震盪後遺症（post-concussion syndrome）。她的病徵，都沒有客觀測試的支持。

14.原告人患有思覺失調（schizoaffective disorder）。在審訊時，她聲稱能透過心靈感應接收到鄧達智先生（“鄧先生”）的訊息，即使鄧先生並不在場。按周醫生的報告：－

“She had residual delusion that she had a special relation with Mr William Tang and she could communicate with him in a special manner …… Regarding her physical condition, she says she is suffering from post-concussional syndrome. She got some information from the internet about the condition …… She has very strong conviction and firmly held belief that she has been suffering from post-concussion syndrome. She said she will try her best to convince anyone of such fact …… She does not think her relief about her relation with Mr Tang is questionable in any way. ”

15.原告人在庭上的表現，與周醫生的報告內容完全一致。她的病徵，都是透過互聯網得知的。本席毫不猶豫的裁定，原告人的心智仍然受思覺失調所影響，她亦採取不正常病患者角色。

該意外有否引致原告人受傷

16.本席接受第一被告人的證供，認為他是一誠實證人，他的證供可信。事實上，該意外碰撞十分輕微，時速只是大約15公里，第一被告人並無突然的急停，兩車的損毀也十分輕微，復康巴士的油漆印上了私家車的左邊倒後鏡及沙板（約4至5吋）。當時原告人繫有安全帶，電動輪椅上亦有啫喱防震軟墊（cushion），第一被告人亦有將原告人的輪椅繫上復康巴士上的固定輪椅安全鎖。

17.該意外發生後，原告人向第一被告人指自己“無事”。未幾，在車上等候救護員時才有右手麻痺，然後左手麻痺，左右下肢不能發力，未能站立。

18.本席裁定，該意外的碰撞輕微，第一被告人並無緊急停車，該意外並無引致原告人受傷。

19.本席不接受原告人的證供，她仍然患有思覺失調，亦採取不正常病患者的角色，她的病徵，均由心理影響，並無生理的理由或基礎。

法律上脆弱頭骨（thin skull rule）是否適用於本案

20.基於以上裁定，脆弱頭骨的原則並不適用於本案。

21.再者，代表被告人的黃大律師指出，原告人於該案意外後聲稱的傷勢，與2006年電車意外的傷勢差不多一樣，詳情如下表所列：－

2006電車意外醫療報告

2010本案意外醫療報告

“1. Neck pain and left shoulder pain”
“8. Left knee pain …… pain was aggravated by weather change”
“6. Generalized pain” …… “pain was aggravated by change of weather”

“10. Lower back pain – she complained of on and off low back pain after the injury. The pain was aggravated by weather change and prolong walking”
“1. Lower back pain – she complained of on and off low back pain. The pain was aggravated by exertion and immobility for more than 10 minutes ……”

“2. Left upper limb weakness”
“3. Bilateral upper limb numbness”
“4. Left side body coldness”
“9. Lower limbs weakness”
“She complained of right sided numbness after the accident which subsided soon but was followed by left sided numbness and weakness. Her left limb numbness subsided after 30 minutes”

“5. Cold sensitivity”
“5. Sensitivity to low temperature”

“6. Fatigue, poor concentration and poor memory”
“4. Fatigue, poor concentration and poor memory”