Lily Tse Lai Yin and Others v. The Incorporated Owners of Albert House and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCPI 828/1997 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 17 September 2001.
1. This is an assessment of damages in respect of the 5th plaintiff arising from the collapse of the canopy at Albert House in Aberdeen on 1 August 1994. Liability has already been determined in favour of the plaintiffs against all the defendants. At the assessment hearing, the 2nd and 5th defendants appeared by counsel. The other defendants did not see fit to appear either in person or by counsel.
Cites 1 case
|
HCPI000828H/1997 HCPI 828/1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE PERSONAL INJURIES LIST NO.828 OF 1997 ----------------------
----------------------- Coram: Hon Suffiad J in Court Dates of Hearing: 23-25 and 27 April, 2-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14 and 16 May 2001 Date of Assessment: 17 September 2001 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES OF THE 5TH PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.This is an assessment of damages in respect of the 5th plaintiff arising from the collapse of the canopy at Albert House in Aberdeen on 1 August 1994. Liability has already been determined in favour of the plaintiffs against all the defendants. At the assessment hearing, the 2nd and 5th defendants appeared by counsel. The other defendants did not see fit to appear either in person or by counsel. 2.At the time of the collapse, the 5th plaintiff had just purchased a newspaper from a newspaper vendor (being the deceased in the claim of the 7th plaintiff herein) and must have been only feet away from the deceased when the canopy collapsed. INJURIES AND TREATMENT 3.Initially when the 5th plaintiff was taken to the Queen Mary Hospital, the only injury noticed by doctors at the hospital was a 1 cm wound over the right ear. She was therefore treated and discharged from the hospital. 4.She was subsequently examined by Dr Arthur Chiang who gave four medical reports between September 1995 and February 2001. It is now not disputed that as a result of the collapse of the canopy, the 5th plaintiff sustained injury to her left kidney, lower back, and right sacral iliac joint and lacerations to her right ear. She was also found to have blood in her urine and a large flank ecchymosis (bruise) was also detected. A CT scan showed a large haematoma around the left kidney. The soft tissue/muscle contution of the lower back and injury to the right sacral iliac joint resulted in pain at the right hip and leg. 5.In his first examination of the 5th plaintiff, Dr Chiang noted tenderness on deep palpation of the left sacral iliac joint and some restriction in the range of movement of the lumbar spine. The 5th plaintiff complained of a mild ache at the left side of the sacral iliac area of the lower back at the end range of extension of the lower back and pain in the back of the right sacral iliac joint upon extremes of flexion of the hips with adduction. 6.Dr Chiang advised that although there was no bony injury, the large haematoma and ecchymosis was expected to be associated with a substantial degree of soft tissue/muscle contution of the lower back and the current residual low back complaint is likely to be the result of the extensive soft tissue injury. The right hip and leg complaint was likely to be from contution of the sacral iliac joint. 7.Dr Chiang advised that the orthopaedic injuries were permanent, amounting to a 5% impairment of the person. He further advised that the 5th plaintiff was fit to return to her pre-accident work with a 5% loss of earnings capacity. 8.When Dr Chiang next examined, the 5th plaintiff in December 1998, four years after the accident, he noted improvements in the orthopaedic condition of the 5th plaintiff and reduced his earlier assessment of her orthopaedic impairment to 2% instead of the original 5% given earlier. 9.There is also evidence before me that in November 2000, the plaintiff had an operation to remove a malignant tumour of the large bowel. This is not caused by the accident. However, because of this the 5th plaintiff has adopted a realistic approach to the assessment and has waived her claims for future loss of earnings. 10.Presently the 5th plaintiff continues to have pain in her back which sometimes radiates to her waist. She is still on painkillers. At times her daughter gives her a massage. The 5th plaintiff also experiences tightness in her thighs and numbness in her right leg with swellings at both legs. 11.Since the accident, the 5th plaintiff has also developed night time urinary frequency, necessitating her to get up from bed four to five times each night with the feeling of a full bladder. She is now still receiving treatment from herbalist for her urological problems. GENERAL DAMAGES FOR PAIN, SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITIES 12.From the medical evidence above, it appears that the 5th plaintiff did not sustain any major physical disabilities as a result of the accident. However, there is also evidence from the 5th plaintiff and her daughter that since the accident, the 5th plaintiff has not returned to her pre-accident work as a seamstress working at home. There is also evidence that after the accident, the 5th plaintiff moved to live at the home of another daughter of hers being looked after there by a maid. 13.Taking into account all these matters, I have come to the conclusion that a sum of $275,000 would be reasonable damages under this head. LOSS OF SERVICES 14.There is a claim for loss of services under section 20C of the Law Amendment Reform Consolidation Ordinance, Cap.23. It arises in this way. Prior to the accident, the 5th plaintiff lived with her daughter but Dr Mei, in the same household. The 5th plaintiff did all the housework and looked after her daughter, cooking and preparing breakfast for her. As a result of the accident, the 5th plaintiff was not able to do the housework, look after her daughter or cook for her. This loss of service is quantified by the 5th plaintiff at $50,000. The claim and the amount has not been disputed by the 2nd and the 5th defendants. Accordingly, that sum will be allowed. LOSS OF EARNINGS (PRE-TRIAL) 15.As already indicated above, the 5th plaintiff was working as a seamstress at home doing piecework before the accident. The evidence of the 5th plaintiff in this respect was that she did the work for regular known customs doing alteration of clothing for them. According to the 5th defendant, business was brisk and the 5th defendant was able to work quickly making such alterations. She would normally charge $20 to $30 for a simple piece of work and $120 for more difficult alterations. In doing this work, the 5th plaintiff was able to make between $2,000 and $3,000 per month. 16.At the time of the accident, and the 5th plaintiff was 69 years old. Although there was no age limit in respect of the home industry in which she was engaged, it would be reasonable to expect that she would not have continued working as a seamstress at home for very much longer after she was, say, seventy years old. In the circumstances, I am of the view that an award under this head for 24 months would be reasonable. As for the multiplicand, I would choose the monthly sum of $2,750 thus giving a total amount of $66,000. SPECIAL DAMAGES 17.The 5th plaintiff also claims for medical expenses in the amount of $79,776; travelling expenses totalling $30,700 as well as tonic food in the amount of $6,000. These claims and the amounts claimed have not been disputed by the 2nd and 5th defendant and will be allowed. COST OF DOMESTIC HELPER 18.In her claim, the 5th plaintiff claimed an amount of $14,875 being a part share of the cost of a domestic helper engaged by the elder daughter of the 5th plaintiff and who took care of the 5th plaintiff for some seven months after the accident. In so far as this claim is concerned, the 2nd and 5th defendants have conceded an amount of $11,100. That concession is acceptable to the 5th plaintiff and the amount of $11,100 will be awarded under this head. FUTURE LOSS OF EARNINGS 19.By reason of the views expressed on the 5th plaintiff's claim for past loss of earnings, there will be no award made in respect of future loss of earnings. INTERESTS 20.Interests on general damages for pain and suffering and also for loss of services will be awarded at 2% per annum from the date of the Writ. The total amount of interests on general damages comes to $24,916. Interests at half judgment rate will be awarded on all special damages and past loss of earnings from the date of accident. Total amount of interests on special damages and past loss of earnings comes to $76,508. SUMMARY
The total damages assessed in respect of the 5th plaintiff therefore comes to $620,045. COSTS 21.There will be a costs order nisi that the defendants do pay the costs of this assessment to be taxed on a party and party basis if not agreed. The 5th plaintiff's own costs to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.
Representation: Ms Corinne Remedios, instructed by Messrs Wilkinson & Grist, for the 5th Plaintiff The 1st Defendant in person, absent Mr Chris Cheng, instructed by Messrs Lau, Chan & Ko, for the 2nd Defendant The 3rd Defendant in person, absent The 4th Defendant in person, absent Mr Chris Cheng, instructed by Messrs Chan, Evans, Chung & To, for the 5th Defendant The 6th Defendant in person, absent |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCPI 828/1997