Gurung Moti Kumari v. New Glory (H.K.) Ltd
Read the full judgment text of DCPI 990/2018 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 7 April 2021.
1. This is a hearing for assessment of damages in relation to the plaintiff Gurung Moti Kumari’s (“GMK”) claim for personal injuries suffered in a work accident on 20 August 2017 (“the Accident”).
Cites 2 cases
|
DCPI 990/2018 [2021] HKDC 385 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 990 OF 2018 ---------------------------
--------------------------- Before: Deputy District Judge Timon Shum in Court Dates of Hearing: 8 and 9 July 2019 Date of Judgment: 7 April 2021 -------------------------- JUDGMENT -------------------------- INTRODUCTION 1.This is a hearing for assessment of damages in relation to the plaintiff Gurung Moti Kumari’s (“GMK”) claim for personal injuries suffered in a work accident on 20 August 2017 (“the Accident”). 2.Judgment to the extent of 95% of the liability was entered against the defendant New Glory (H.K.) Limited (“NGL”) by consent of the parties on 29 November 2018. 3.At the assessment hearing, GMK testified and NGL called林佩玲 as defence witness. THE PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE 4.GMK was born on 17 July 1988 in Nepal. She was educated up to high school level. She is a native Nepalese speaker. She can speak little English and very few Cantonese phrases. 5.She came to Hong Kong in December 2012. She is married but does not have any children yet. 6.After obtaining her Hong Kong identity card, she started working for NGL as a restaurant server in August 2013. She worked for a period of time and then resigned. She went back to Nepal for 2 months. 7.After returning to Hong Kong, GMK started working for NGL again on 1 June 2015 at its restaurant on Roof Top, 2/F, Golf Driving Range, South China Athletic Association, 88 Caroline Hill Road, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong (“the Restaurant”). 8.Her duties at the Restaurant included attending customers, taking orders, serving drinks, clearing dirty glasses and dishes on the tables, moving and arranging tables and chairs. When carrying out her job duties, she needed to use both hands. 9.On 20 August 2017, at about 10:30 pm, in the course of work at the Restaurant, GMK was clearing a dirty table. She picked up an empty glass and held in her left hand. She then picked up 2 more glasses and stacked them above the one in her left hand. In the course of doing so, all the 3 glasses suddenly broke into pieces and GMK’s left palm and fingers were injured (“the Accident”). Her left ring finger was pierced and seriously cut by a broken glass piece. 10.Immediately after the Accident, GMK’s left ring finger was bleeding profusely and she was in great pain. She informed the bar tender and the supervisor about the Accident. The supervisor instructed a Chinese colleague to accompany GMK to the hospital. They took a taxi and went to the Accident & Emergency Department (“A&E Department”) of Ruttonjee & Tang Shiu Kin Hospitals (“RTSKH”). 11.After examination and x-ray scan, her wound was cleaned and some tiny broken glass pieces were removed from the left ring finger. An anti-tetanus injection was given to GMK. The diagnosis was laceration with complete cut of left finger tendon EDP and FDS at Zone II. She was transferred to Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital (“PYNEH”) for further treatment and management. She was admitted to the Orthopaedics & Traumatology ward and surgery was done for the left finger. After the surgery, a bandage was applied to the injured finger. She was given painkillers and oral analgesics. She was discharged on 22 August 2017. 12.After discharge, GMK attended Yau Ma Tei Jockey Club Clinic (“YMTJCC”) for dressing of wound. The stitches were removed in September 2017 at PYNEH. She also attended PYNEH for follow up treatments. The treating doctor referred her to Queen Elizabeth Hospital (“QEH”) for occupational therapy and physiotherapy. 13.GMK says that the pain in her left palm has reduced. But she is still suffering from persistent pain, stiffness, numbness and weakness over the injured left finger. The pain would aggravate in cold weather. She has difficulty in make a fist. She is unable to lift and carry heavy objects with the left hand. The gripping power of the left hand has been reduced tremendously. The left ring finger has bent inward and become curved and it cannot straighten. The injuries to left ring finger make cooking, cleaning, washing clothes and household chores more difficult. 14.As a result of the injuries sustained in the Accident, GMK cannot cope with the pre-accident job which required use of both hands frequently. The pre-accident job involved strenuous manual handling works such as carrying and serving drinks to customers, clearing dirty glasses and dishes on the tables, moving and arranging tables and chairs. 15.Since June 2018, GMK has been working at Genki Ippai Japanese Farmhouse Style Restaurant (“the Japanese Restaurant”) in Tsim Sha Tsui as a kitchen helper. This job does not require too much physical exertion on her part. HISTORY OF TREATMENTS Report from Ruttonjee & Tang Shiu Kin Hospitals 16.The report from RTSKH dated 7 January 2018 recorded GMK’s conditions and injuries when she attended the A&E Department on the day of the Accident:-
Report from Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital 17.The report from PYNEH dated 26 June 2018 stated that GMK was admitted on 21 August 2017. Her condition and treatment were as follows:-
Report from Occupational Therapy Department of Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital 18.GMK was referred for occupational therapy. The report dated 14 June 2018 from the Occupational Therapy Department of PYNEH states the following:-
Report from Occupational Therapy Department of Queen Elizabeth Hospital 19.GMK was referred by the medical officer of the Orthopaedics & Traumatology Specialist Clinic of PYNEH to the Occupational Therapy Department on 6 September 2017 for flexor tendon repaired program. She was initially seen on 11 September 2017 and flexor tendon repaired programme was continued. 20.The assessment on 8 January 2018 showed the followings:-
Joint Orthopaedic Experts’ Report dated 29 November 2017 21.GMK was examined by orthopaedic experts Dr Wong Lok Yan, Ian and Dr Chiang Si Chung, Arthur on 12 September 2018. A joint report dated 8 November 2018 was compiled by the 2 experts. GMK’s complaints at the examination included:-
22.In order to understand the 2 orthopaedic experts’ opinions, it is necessary for one to know the terminologies used by them:-
23.The 2 orthopaedic experts found that 2 tendons of the left ring finger had been completely cut in the Accident ie the superficial flexor tendon (the flexor digitorum superficialis) and the deep flexor tendon (the flexor digitorum profundus). The ulnar side of the digital nerve had been cut partially. 24.The superficial flexor tendon mainly flexes the PIPJ and contributes to the flexion of the MCPJ. 25.The deep flexor tendon flexes the DIPJ and contributes to the flexion of the PIPJ and MCPJ. Dr Wong Lok Yan, Ian’s comments 26.Dr Wong gave the following comments in the joint medical report:-
27.Dr Wong assessed GMK to be suffering from 5% whole person impairment and 5% loss of earning capacity. Dr Chiang Si Chung’s comments 28.Dr Chiang’s analysis was more focused on the AROM and the PROM of the ring finger joints. He was of the view that the decreases in AROM and PROM were caused by adhesion of the repair site and stiffness in the adjacent finger joints. 29.Dr Chiang looked at the medical notes from the O&T Department of PYNEH and noted a moderate to significant decrease in AROM of DIPJ and PIPJ and a mild decrease in AROM of MCPJ on 4 October 2017 when compared to the normal range of movement:-
30.While the AROM of DIPJ and PIPJ remained more or less the same, a satisfactory AROM of the MCPJ was noted at the follow-up appointment on 15 November 2017:-
31.At the follow-up appointment on 29 January 2018, it was noted that the AROM of the DIPJ and PIPJ were still quite limited but the PROM showed significant improvement when compared with the previous follow-up on 18 December 2017:-
32.Based on the improvement in PROM of the DIPJ and the PIPJ, Dr Chiang gave the following views:-
DISCUSSION Genuineness of the plaintiff’s complaints 33.The main dispute between the 2 sides is whether GMK could return to the pre-accident job as a restaurant server with NGL. This to a large extent depends on the genuineness of her complaints of symptoms. In her evidence, GMK stated that she is still suffering from pain, stiffness, numbness and weakness over the left ring finger. Similar complaints were raised to the 2 orthopaedic experts at the joint examination on 12 September 2018. 34.GMK maintains that she still has pain in the left ring finger. She says the pain had improved after occupation therapy and physiotherapy. After discharge from occupational therapy, she had pain again. She told the doctor about this and she was given physiotherapy again. 35.I accept that GMK’s complaint of pain as genuine. At the joint examination, she described the pain as mild and constant. It would increase with carrying of weight, cold temperature, when dipping into cold water and upon movement and stretching. This was supported by 2 orthopaedic experts’ physical examination. When they tested the AROM of the MCPJ, while the result of -10-90 degrees was within the normal range, pain was reported at the end range. Dr Wong opined that the complaint of pain is genuine and is compatible with the post injury status with cut tendons and nerve. Dr Chiang did not express any contrary view. 36.Defence counsel relies on the occupation therapy report to say that GMK had no complaint of pain on 4 October 2017, 13 November 2017 and 18 December 2017 because there were entry records of “pain –ve” for those 3 days. 37.GMK says she did not tell the occupational therapist that she did not have pain. She explains that such entries might be caused by her lack of English communication skills. 38.I am unsure about how GMK communicated with the occupational therapist which resulted in such entries as “pain –ve”. But I would not reject GMK’s complaint of pain just because of those entries in the occupational therapy progress report. On the whole, I find that the information contained in the report as being not too reliable. In the occupational therapy progress sheet dated 11 September 2017, there was an entry of “pain: -ve at rest”. Therefore, it is entirely unclear the entries in the occupation therapy progress report carry the meaning of “no pain at rest” or “no pain at all”. 39.Another reason for my reservation about the occupational therapy progress report is the inconsistencies between the degrees of AROM measured by the occupational therapist and those measured by the treating doctor at PYNEH. The measurements were taken on the same dates but with significantly different results. They are set out as follows:-
40.I have more confidence in the PYNEH treating doctor’s records than in the occupational therapy progress report. 41.Regarding the complaint of stiffness, both orthopaedic experts accepted that it is a genuine complaint. Dr Wong was of the view that stiffness is compatible with post injury status with cut tendons and nerve. Dr Chiang was of the view that the residual stiffness in the DIPJ and PIPJ was mild and showed obvious improvement from the stiffness of the finger joints in early 2018. 42.As to numbness, Dr Wong said that it is a genuine complaint and is compatible with post injury status with cut tendons and nerve. Dr Chiang relied on the occupational therapy progress report entry on 18 December 2017 stating “Numbness –ve” and concluded that likely it had resolved. For reasons already given, I do not think the information in the occupational therapy progress report is reliable. 43.Dr Wong stated “it is well known that even with successful repair, the sensation would not fully recover; mild residual decrease in light touch sensation is almost the rule”. But Dr Chiang had not responded to this view and just relied on the entry in the occupational therapy progress report for reaching a conclusion. The joint medical report stated clearly that “examination of the left ring finger revealed tenderness along the vertical limb of scar associated with stiffness, numbness and weakness.” GMK still complains of numbness when giving evidence in court. If Dr Chiang’s conclusion that numbness had been resolved as early as 18 December 2017 is correct, why would GMK still complain of numbness at the joint medical examination on 12 September 2018? Dr Chiang did not give an explanation for this and did not suggest that GMK was malingering or exaggerating her symptoms. I am not satisfied with Dr Chiang’s conclusion and prefer the view of Dr Wong on the issue of numbness. 44.Dr Wong opined that the complaint of weakness in the left ring finger is genuine and compatible with post injury status with cut tendons and nerve. Based on the JAMAR Test of grip strength, Dr Chiang gave the view that the strength of the left hand appeared to be lower than expected. It should be of better strength than that shown while a “mild decrease” from the pre-injury strength could be present. 45.While Dr Chiang only expected a “mild decrease” in strength, the Jamar Test results showed a significant lack of strength in the left hand when compared with the right hand:
46.The JAMAR Test results certainly amounted to a significant decrease of strength instead of a “mild decrease” as described by Dr Chiang. However, there was no explanation given by Dr Chiang as to why the results would not reflect his expectation. Dr Chiang made no suggestion of malingering or exaggeration on the part of GMK. As such, there is a gap between the test results and his view. I believe the view of Dr Wong on the issue of weakness is more complete and I accept the same. Overall impression of the 2 orthopaedic experts’ views 47.While I appreciate Dr Chiang’s analysis based on the AROM and PROM, overall speaking I prefer the views of Dr Wong for the following reasons:-
48.I find Dr Wong’s views to be more consistent and complete and they could explain the symptoms complained by GMK. I accept Dr Wong’s views and find that GMK’s complaints of pain, stiffness, numbness and weakness of the left ring finger to be genuine. Whether the plaintiff can return to the pre-accident job 49.The pre-accident job with NGL required GMK to attend customers, take orders and serve drinks. When serving a big group of customers, GMK would be instructed to use a serving tray. After the customers had left, she would be required to clear dirty glasses and dishes. Moving and arranging tables and chairs were also part of her duties. While working for NGL, she had to show up at 12:00 noon and worked from 12:30 pm to 3:00 pm. After that, she would have a 4-hour break. She would resume again at 7:00 pm and finish the working day at 1:00 am. There was no break from 7:00 pm to 1:00 am. Such a schedule would mean that she worked about 8.5 hours a day. She would have 4 rest days in a month and those were not necessarily Saturdays or Sundays. 50.As a result of the injuries to the left ring finger and the residual symptoms, GMK says she cannot perform the aforesaid duties and she cannot handle heavy pots and heavy trays with food. 51.Since June 2018, GMK has been working as a kitchen helper at the Japanese Restaurant. She works inside the kitchen most of the time. According to GMK, this job does not require her to deal with customers directly. The waiters take orders from customers and input the information into a machine. The machine would then print out the ordered items. GMK is responsible for taking the print outs to the chefs. She would also take out the ingredients from the refrigerator and pass to the chefs for cooking. When the food is ready, GMK would take the food to a counter where the waiters would pick up and serve to the customers. She does not need to help with the cooking. But when closing hour is approaching, she needs to do some light cleaning like wiping the print out machine and the tables inside the kitchen. Her usual working hours are from 5 pm to 12 am (ie around 7 hours of work each day). She enjoys 8 rest days in a month which are not necessarily Saturdays or Sundays. 52.Dr Wong opined that GMK would have “significant difficulty” to return to the pre-accident job. She would have “significant difficulty” with “frequent assertion like serving dishes and clearing tables”. The current job which requires checking of orders is sedentary in nature and a suitable employment for her. 53.On the other hand, Dr Chiang opined that GMK should be able to return to the pre-accident job, probably with a mild decrease in efficiency. 54.For reasons already given, I prefer the view of Dr Wong. Dr Chiang’s conclusion was based on his views that numbness had been resolved and there is only a “mild decrease” of strength which I do not accept. Therefore, I reject the conclusion as well. Besides, Dr Wong specifically identified the job aspects with which GMK would have difficulties. But there was no such mention by Dr Chiang before he gave his conclusion. Dr Chiang stated that GMK’s left hand “would have a satisfactory capacity in handling heavy objects or performing manual activities”. Such an observation is clearly not supported by the JAMAR Test results. 55.I accept that due to the residual symptoms, GMK would have difficulties with carrying heavy pots, heavy trays, clearing tables, moving chairs and setting up tables. The pre-accident job gave her longer working hours and less rest days which might be more strenuous to her left ring finger. 56.The pre-accident job gave GMK a monthly income of HK$13,930.28 while her monthly income from the Japanese Restaurant is about HK$11,000. There is a monthly shortfall of HK$2,930.28. GMK agreed that the pre-accident job was a happy one and the management treated her well. If GMK is able to return to the pre-accident, there is no reason why she would be unwilling to do so, thereby suffering a monthly income loss. 57.NGL called its human resources manager 林佩玲 (“Lam”) as defence witness. According to Lam, GMK was on sick leave from 21 August 2017 to 26 April 2018. After expiration of sick leave, Lam sent GMK a message by WhatsApp asking her when she could resume working. GMK replied that she could not return to the pre-accident job yet because her left ring finger still had pain when carrying weight. Lam and GMK agreed that from 27 April 2018 to 25 May 2018, GMK would still be on annual leave and statutory holiday leave. When GMK returned to NGL on 8 May 2018 to fill in the leave application form, she indicated to Lam that she would not resign but could not tell when she could resume working again. From 26 May 2018 to 11 June 2018, GMK was on no pay leave. On 12 June 2018, Lam sent a message to GMK by WhatsApp asking her about the arrangement from 12 June 2018 onward but there was no concrete reply from GMK. Lam says that NGL all along was willing to let GMK return to the pre-accident job. It was GMK not giving any firm reply. Lam believes that the injuries sustained by GMK were not serious and she can return to the pre-accident job with NGL. 58.As a matter of fact, GMK had started working for the Japanese Restaurant as a kitchen helper in June 2018. I agree that she should have shown more responsibility by informing NGL clearly if she had decided not to return to the pre-accident job. 59.Lam also says in evidence that NGL could have considered allowing GMK to return to the pre-accident job with the same income level but with lighter duties assigned to her. But this part of evidence was not covered in Lam’s written witness statement. There is no evidence that an actual offer was made to GMK. As such, Lam’s evidence does not change my conclusion that GMK would have difficulty in returning to the pre-accident job. 60.The fact that GMK started an alternative job in June 2018, which was within 2 months after her expiration of sick leave, gives me the impression that she is not a lazy person. Even she could not cope with the pre-accident job, she found an alternative job and reduced her income loss. She wanted to return to work and normal life. She was not just sitting there and waiting for full compensation from NGL. Criticism of the plaintiff’s evidence 61.For the sake of completeness, I also deal with the criticism of GMK’s evidence by counsel for NGL. 62.Counsel says that GMK gave the reason that she cannot return to the pre-accident job because she cannot not carry a tray with food and drinks but the surveillance video produced by NGL showed that she was carrying a tray of food while working in the Japanese Restaurant. 63.I do not find this as valid criticism. GMK’s evidence was that she cannot carry a “heavy” tray of food and drinks. She did not say she cannot carry any tray of food. I understand her meaning was that it all depends on the weight. In any event, she also has difficulties with carrying heavy pots, clearing tables, moving chairs and setting up tables which were part of the pre-accident job duties. Her ability to carry a tray of food alone would not enable her to return to the pre-accident job. 64.Counsel asked GMK in cross-examination how she would take the cooked dishes from the kitchen to the counter. GMK replied that she would not use a tray. She could take the cooked dishes one after the other because they would not be finished at the same time. In the surveillance video, she was seen holding a tray with cooked dishes. Based on this, counsel suggested that she was being contradictory. 65.One should understand GMK’s evidence in the context. When she was asked about the surveillance video, she gave the reply that she did not know what was shown in the video was a tray or not. Then she said workers inside the kitchen did not use trays but she might use one if the food was hot. Even if this amounts to a departure from her earlier answer, this would not be a significant matter that would affect GMK’s overall credibility. One would not reasonably expect a kitchen worker to hold a bowl of hot soup with bare hands. The use of a tray for hot food is just common sense. Assessing GMK’s evidence as a whole, I understand GMK’s meaning was that workers in the kitchen generally would not use trays but she might use one when hot food needed to be transferred from one place to another. 66.Counsel asked GMK whether she used her left hand when transferring cooked dishes from the kitchen to the counter. GMK gave the reply “Not really … can use right hand”. But she was seen using left hand in the surveillance video. 67.Once again, one should understand GMK’s evidence in the context. It has never been the case of GMK that she cannot use her left hand at all. The focus of this assessment hearing is whether the symptoms in GMK’s left ring finger would prevent her from carrying out the pre-accident job duties. As I understand, GMK’s meaning was that she would prefer to use her right hand. She was not alleging that she could never use her left hand while working at the Japanese Restaurant. She said she could carry dishes with the left hand if they were light. 68.After forming my views on the medical evidence and assessing GMK’s credibility, I proceed to assess the quantum of damages. Pain, suffering and loss of amenities 69.GMK claims HK$150,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenities. This figure is not disputed by NGL. 70.I also think that this figure reflects the injuries and residual symptoms suffered by GMK. I allow the same. Pre-trial loss of earnings 71.At the time of the Accident, GMK was earning a monthly income of HK$13,930.38 as a restaurant server for NGL. She was on sick leave from 21 August 2017 to 26 April 2018. 72.For assessing GMK’s pre-trial loss of earnings, counsel for NGL was prepared to allow 2 more months on top of the sick leave period, thereby giving a total period of about 10.2 months. The full loss of earnings for this period is as follows:
73.Pre-trial loss of earnings in the sum of HK$142,089.88 is agreed by GMK. I will award this accordingly. Future loss of earnings 74.After expiration of the sick leave on 26 April 2018, GMK managed to secure an alternative job with the Japanese Restaurant in June 2018 which gives her a monthly income of HK$11,000. When compared to the pre-accident job, there is a monthly income loss of HK$2,930.38 ie HK$13,930.38 - HK$11,000. 75.NGL’s position is that GMK should be able to return to the pre-accident job from June 2018 and there should be no further loss of earnings. This view is not accepted by me. 76.GMK was 29 years old at the time of the Accident. She was 30 at the time of assessment hearing. 77.In Cheung Oi Yan Ruby v Wong Hoi Sum, HCPI 981/2007, Master de Souza was prepared to adopt a multiplier of 13 for assessing the future loss of earnings of a 34-year-old female plaintiff. And in Wong Yan Lam v Lam Wing Kei, HCPI 439/2009, Master Woolley adopted a multiplier of 16 for a 28-year-old female plaintiff. 78.In the Revised Statement of Damages, a multiplier of 18.5 was pleaded. But in GMK’s written closing submissions, she made a concession and used a multiplier of 5 only. In fairness to NGL, I would assess future loss of earnings using a multiplier of 5 as submitted by GMK:
Loss of Mandatory Provident Fund 79.GMK’s employer would be required by law to make a 5% contribution to the Mandatory Provident Fund (“MPF”) based on her income. 80.The loss of MPF based on her pre-trial loss of earnings would be as follows:-
81.The loss of MPF based on her future loss of earnings would be as follows:-
82.The total loss of MPF is:-
Loss of earning capacity 83.GMK also claims loss of earning capacity. 84.On 10 May 2018, the Employees’ Compensation (Ordinary Assessment) Board assessed GMK to be suffering from 4% loss of earning capacity as a result of her injuries. 85.A percentage of loss of earning capacity given by the board does not carry too much meaning. This was highlighted by Hunter JA in Chan Kit v Sam Wo Industrial Manufactory [1989] 1 HKC 115 at 118D-E:-
86.Dr Wong was of the view that GMK is suffering 5% loss of earning capacity. On the other hand, Dr Chiang believed the loss of earning capacity should be 2-3%. 87.The guiding principle for making an award for loss of earning capacity was stated in Moeliker v A Reyrolle & Co Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 132 at 141:-
88.In Chan Wai Tong v Li Ping Sum [1985] HKLR 176, at 183, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton stated the following:-
89.GMK and counsel for NGL agree that the award for loss of earning capacity should be HK$16,500. I do not think such a figure is excessive and will award the same. Special damages 90.In the Revised Statement of Damages, GMK is claiming medical expenses in the sum of HK$6,000 and travelling expenses in the sum of HK$2,500. This is agreed by counsel for NGL. I allow the total figure of HK$8,500 accordingly. 91.In GMK’s written closing submissions, she claims HK$60,000 for future medical expenses. This is the costs for the surgery of adhesion release estimated by Dr Wong. This item was not pleaded in the Revised Statement of Damages and the report from PYNEH dated 26 June 2018 indicated that GMK had decided for conservative treatment. Therefore, I would not allow this claim for future medical expenses. Summary of quantum of damages 92.GMK has received Employees’ Compensation in the sum of HK$255,440.80 from NGL. This should be deducted from the quantum of damages. The court’s assessment of damages is set out as follows:-
Interest 93.I allow interest on the award for pain, suffering and loss of amenities at 2% per annum from the date of writ to the date of judgment and on pre-trial loss of earnings, loss of MPF on pre-trial loss of earnings and pre-trial special damages at half judgment rate from the date of the Accident. In view of the fact that the amount of Employees’ Compensation HK$255,440.80 exceeds the total amount of pre-trial damages, interest on all pre-trial damages will only be awarded up to the date on which the Employees’ Compensation was paid to GMK. Costs 94.There be a costs order nisi that NGL do pay GMK costs for the assessment of damages (including all costs reserved), to be taxed if not agreed. The costs order nisi shall become absolute in the absence of application to vary within 14 days. 95.Lastly, I thank counsel for NGL for his assistance.
The plaintiff was not represented and appeared in person Mr Cao Yuan Shan, instructed by Tang & Lee, for the defendant | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||