Choy for Sang v. Tong Kwok Ming

Case No.HCA 1886/1977

Court

High Court CFI

Date—

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCA001886/1977

1977, No. 1886

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

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

BETWEEN
	CHOY FOR SANG	Plaintiff
	and
	TONG KWOK MING	Defendant

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

Coram: Mr. Registrar Barnett in Chambers.

Date of Judgment: 24th January, 1978.

Alfred Law (Vincent Lo & Co.) for Plaintiff.

Defendant in person.

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

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

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

1. On 13th June 1976 the Plaintiff was injured in a traffic accident. He was taken to Queen Elizabeth Hospital in an unconscious state with 5 lacerations of his face measuring from 2 c.m. to 6 c.m. and multiple abrasions of the forearms. It was not remarked upon at the time but it is plain that the Plaintiff also suffered injury to his upper jaw which resulted in the replacing of a number of teeth.

2. On 17th June 1976, against medical advice, the Plaintiff's family caused the Plaintiff who was still unconscious to be transferred to St. Teresa's Hospital. There arteriography was performed which revealed an intracranial haematoma. On 22nd June, the Plaintiff underwent a craniotomy to remove the haematoma. He was then placed in the intensive care unit where he gradually regained consciousness. He was discharged from hospital on 28th July 1976.

3. The Plaintiff now suffers from severe double vision in all gaze positions except looking up to the left. He is unfit for any employment and, indeed, has the greatest difficulty in doing anything or going anywhere. His activities are almost completely curtailed.

4. Dr. Heffernan gave evidence for the Plaintiff. Putting his detailed evidence simply, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff is a suitable candidate for the lengthy and complex surgery and treatment required to afford some measure of correction to his double vision and that, on the balance of probabilities he will recover normal binocular vision at least as far as straight ahead and down gazes are concerned. The course of treatment would last about 12 months and take 2 or 3 operations. It could be carried out in Hong Kong but the expertise is not readily available. Dr. Heffernan recommended that the Plaintiff should go to London or Australia where there are special clinics dealing with eye problems.

5. Apart from double vision, the Plaintiff is also left with a badly scarred face. He is only 26 and unmarried.

6. Turning to general damages, I do not think this is a case where I can award specific sums under the various sub-heads. Rather, it is a case where I shall award a global sum to take into account the following factors:-

(i)		Pain, suffering and loss of amenities. These are self evident from the matters I have already mentioned.
(ii)		Total loss of earnings for at least another 12 months. Before the accident, the Plaintiff was a driver earning $1,500 per month.
(iii)		Cost of treatment for double vision. The cost in Hong Kong was put at $25,000. To this must be added, I consider, an allowance for the cost of travel to and from London or Australia and for board and lodging there for 12 months. On the evidence, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff's chances of a measure of correction to his disability will be much improved if he goes overseas. It is right that he should be afforded such opportunity.
(iv)		Permanent reduction of earnings. It is most unlikely that the Plaintiff will ever drive again. His future prospects are most uncertain but there is likely to be a reduction of not less than $500 per month.

7. I was referred to two cases concerning double vision. In Shui Kai-ling v. Lim Sai-hung (O.J.A. 144/72) Briggs J. (as he then was) awarded $14,500 for double vision. The disability does not appear to have been so serious as vision had returned very nearly to normal and there was no loss of earnings. The award was in 1972.

8. In Phillips v. Gordon (Kemp and Kemp, 4th Edition, 5-241) $5, 000 was awarded for general damages including double vision. The injured person was able to do copy typing but the degree of disability appears to have been comparable with the instant case. There was no suggestion of treatment. The award was in 1966.

9. After consideration of all these matters, I am of the opinion that the proper award is $200,000.

10. I allow special damages as follows:-

(a)	Loss of earnings from 13th June 1976 to date, at $1,500 p.m.	$28,500.00
(b)	Q.E.H. fees	75.00
(c)	Medical reports	500.00
(d)	Dental fees	2,000.00
		-------------
	Total special damages :	$31,075.00

11. There will be interest at 4% on special damages and at 8% on $75,000 of general damages.

12. Payment of damages and interest within 14 days.

13. Plaintiff's cost.

14. Fit for counsel.

15. Liberty to apply.

16. Dated this the 24th day of January, 1978.

	(N.J. Barnett)
	Assistant Registrar

Representation:

Alfred Law (Vincent Lo & Co.) for Plaintiff.

Defendant in person.