Wong Pui-tat v. Cheung Chun-yuen and Another

HCA001847/1975

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 1847 OF 1975

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

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

Coram: Li, J. in Court

Date of Judgment: 18th October, 1976 at 3.05 p.m.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an action for damages arising from a fatal accident which occurred in April 1973. The defendants having admitted liability, the only outstanding issue is the quantum damages. At the time of death the deceased was about 23 years and a half in age. He was survived by his father, at the time aged 48, mother aged 47, and five brothers ranging from the age of 5 to 16. I have not followed the age of his brothers as alleged in the pleadings because they were not accurate in accordance with the evidence tendered before me in the form of birth certificates. I work out the ages of the five brothers of the deceased respectively as being aged 5, 8, 11, 13 and 16. The deceased at the time of death was employed in a cooked food stall, earning about $800. In addition to his wages he had food provided for him by his employer. At the end of the Chinese New Year, he was given a red packet worth about $500. He contributed to the family expenses in support of himself, his parents and brothers to the tenor of about $700 for five months, and $600 per month for seven months in the course of the year. Thus, the total contribution from his wages came to $7,700 per annum. Around the Chinese New Year he used to give his mother an extra of three to four hundred dollars. I don't think there is much dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants that at the time of death, the usual pattern of contribution came to about $8,000 per annum. Out of this sum a reduction would have to be made for the benefits that the deceased used to obtain although he did not have his meals at home. There were other amenities the deceased used to have at home which would cost some money. It is agreed between the plaintiff and the defendants that such reduction should be around the region of between $1,200 to $1,500 per annum. However, I find that, the deceased having had all his meals with the employer, the deduction should be something about a thousand dollars a year. I don't think either party will grudge me if I say that the multiplicand should be in the region of $7,000. That leaves the question of the multiplier.

2. At the time of the accident the deceased was a very young man, living with a closely knit family. He was fond of his brothers and was dutiful and filial to his parents. It has been suggested that being a young man, one day he will be married and have his own family, and therefore his contribution will drastically be reduced. I have been referred to a list of authorities that is published in the Hong Kong Law Journal in 1975, in which the various cases of fatal accidents involving a young member of the family, the multiplier adopted ranged from 5 to 14. For this reason, learned counsel for the defence suggested that the multiplier in this case should be somewhere in the region of 5 to 6. There is some force in this argument except for this, that without being disrespectful to the way of life to the western society, the Chinese people are different. I find that the deceased being the eldest son in the family, he took more responsibility upon himself in looking after his parents and his younger brothers. One can envisage that even if he were to be married his wife, and children would be regarded as additions to the family rather than a separate family unit even if they were to live apart. That is from the financial point of view in that class of people. The plaintiff, the deceased's father, did say that he had no idea of whether his son had any girlfriend or ever intended to marry. He was determined that if the deceased should live to 29 or 30 years of age, the father would certainly find a wife for him and help him to get married. That being the case, it appears that there is a reasonable expectation that the full rate of contribution at $7,000 per annum would continue for at least another six or seven years. After that, the deceased's younger brothers would grow up, particularly the one who was 16 at the time of his death. They themselves would take up part of the responsibility in contributing to the family expenses as they grow older. The pressure on the financial responsibility of the deceased would then be reduced. It is common knowledge that sons, irrespective of race or creed, do look after their parents in various degrees. I would not expect the contributions from the deceased, had he lived, would have completely ceased once he's got married or his brothers have grown up. Such contribution would have continued, although very much reduced. In this respect, I have to have regard to the life and the age of the parents, who were then 48 and 47 at the time of the accident, and the age of the deceased, age of 23 and a half, age 24. Such partial contributions could have continued for a long number of years. But it is not necessary to refer to the table of expectancy of life to understand how many years that would continue. In the case of FONG Chu, when a young boy of 15 was killed, the multiplier adopted was 14. That was on a rather high scale. In another one, in the case of CHEUNG Yau, when a young man of 18 was killed, the multiplier adopted was 7. In the case of Dolbey v. Goodwin, the multiplier adopted was 8 ½ years. Taking these into consideration, I find that with the reasonable expectancy of 6 years full contribution and partial contribution for many years to come, I don't feel that a multiplier of 9 is excessive and I think it is appropriate. For these reasons I would adopt the multiplicand of $7,000, the multiplier of 9, this would give a total of $63,000 plus the funeral expenses sustained at $2,000, making a total of $65,000. I can't say, having a second reading on the pleadings again, that the claim of loss of expectation of life has not been claimed. Neither counsel for the plaintiff nor counsel for the defendants took great issue in this matter. Whatever I award for the loss of expectation of life would have to merge with the claim under dependency. For this matter, I would rather leave this without making any award because whatever sum I award for the loss of expectation of life would have to be deducted from the $63,000. For this reason, the damages awarded will be a total of $65,000 and costs should follow the event.

3. Interests on special damages at 4% per annum as from the 1st of May, 1973, interest on general damages at 8% per annum as from the 30th of July, 1975 are to be added to the damages awarded. Cost to be taxed according to Legal Aid Ordinance.

Representation: