Ng Shik-lin v. Wu Po-chow

DCCJ004991/1975

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 4991 OF 1975

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

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

Coram: Judge Jones, D.J. in Chambers.

Date of Judgment: 26th September, 1975.

Mr. A. Liu of (K.B. Chau & Co.) for Plaintiff.

Mr. Hoosenally of (Hoosenally & Co.) for Defendant.

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

DECISION

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

1. This is an assessment of the Plaintiff's damages pursuant to an interlocutory judgment that was entered by consent on the 11th August 1975. By this judgment the defendant admitted liability to the extent of 90% of the damages to be awarded.

2. The Plaintiff who is a single man now aged 34 suffered personal injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on the 26th January 1973 when he was knocked down whilst crossing Hennessy Road at the junction of O'Brien Road by a motor cycle owned and driven by the defendant. As a result of the accident the Plaintiff sustained a fracture shaft of the right tibia and fibula.

3. The Plaintiff was admitted to the Queen Mary Hospital where the leg was placed in plaster of Paris and was transferred to Sandy Bay Convalescent Hospital on the 7th February 1973 from where he was discharged on the 22nd February 1973 for reasons not connected with the accident. He was readmitted to Queen Mary Hospital on 28th March 1973 and again transferred to Sandy Bay on the 4th April 1973. The Plaintiff was eventually discharged on the 7th June 1973. The plaster cast was removed at the end of July 1973.

4. An agreed medical report dated 24th September 1973 exhibit Plrevealed that at that time apart from slight deformity, pigmentation and weakness of the right leg the fracture was considered to be healed.

5. The Plaintiff in evidence stated that he had made a full recovery from the effects of the accident three months after his final discharge from hospital i.e. September 1973.

6. At the time of the accident the Plaintiff was working as a guide on his own account for the benefit of sailors and said that he earned commission of $700 per month. Although the Plaintiff was not working as a guide in the generally accepted meaning of the term nevertheless I have no reason to doubt that he was earning $700 per month for the services that he rendered. He claims $700 per month from the date of the accident until the 31st July 1973 and I will allow the sum of $4200 as set out in the Particulars of Claim. Although there was no documentary evidence to support the other two items of special damage viz damaged clothing $80 and hospital bill $20 I accept that these losses were incurred.

7. Accordingly the special damages will be allowed at the sum of $4300 as claimed.

8. Having regard to the fact that by September, 1973 the Plaintiff had made a full recovery from the injuries, general damages will be limited to pain and suffering which I assess at $7000.00. Damages are therefore assessed at $11300.00. Upon the principles enunciated in Jefford v. Gee (C.A.) 1970 2 Q.B.D. at page 146 there will be interest on the special damages of $4300 at the rate of 4% from the date of the accident 26th January 1973 until to-day and at 8% on the general damages of $7000,00 from the date of service of the writ which was the 5th July 1975. Costs to the Plaintiff to be taxed on the upper scale.

9. The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to 90% of the damages and costs awarded.

10. Plaintiff's costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid (Scale of Fees) Regulations on the Upper Scale.

Representation:

Mr. A. Liu of (K.B. Chau & Co.) for Plaintiff.

Mr. Hoosenally of (Hoosenally & Co.) for Defendant.