Wong Nyuk Jin and Another v. Lam Lun

HCA001936/1975

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

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

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

Coram: Mr. Registrar Stapp in Chambers.

Date of Judgment: 24th November, 1976.

Mr. C.A. White of the Legal Aid Dept. for the Plaintiffs.

Defendant absent.

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

DECISION

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

1. This is an assessment of damages under the Fatal Accidents Ordinance and the Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance, arising from the death of the 1st plaintiff's husband Lee Wing Pang in a road accident which occurred on 2nd October, 1972. The deceased was a passenger in a private car registered number AW9246, owned by the defendant, which collided with the wall in the cross-harbour tunnel, causing injuries from which the deceased died on 3rd October, 1972.

2. Interlocutory judgment was entered on 11th August, 1976 for damages to be assessed and costs to be taxed.

3. Dependency was claimed by or on behalf of the following relatives:

4. At the time of death, the deceased was aged 35 and in good health. He was employed as a plasterer by Shaw Brothers, earning on the average approximately $870 per month, including overtime. Since his death, there have been substantial rises in remuneration for that job, according to the firm's personnel officer who testified. Had he lived on and stayed in the same job, he would now be earning approximately $1,300 per month, including overtime.

5. At the time of death, the deceased was the sole means of support for the family, paying his wife an average of $725 per month for the family's living expenses. The deceased ate two meals per day at home, and I would estimate his share of expenses at $125 per month. This would leave a dependency figure for the widow and children of $600 per month.

6. In addition, I accept that the deceased used to pay his widowed mother $100 per month towards her living expenses, as also did each of her three other sons and one daughter. Man dependency at the time of death was therefore $100 per month, so far as the deceased was concerned.

7. The deceased was engaged in a rather well rewarded semi-skilled trade. He was in good health, and might have continued working on till quite late in life. His youngest child was born posthumously, several months after the date of death.

8. I assess damages under the Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance in the sum of $8,000, which will merge with damages under the Fatal Accidents Ordinance.

9. Having regard to the above facts, the assessment of a lump sum, the nature of the deceased's occupation, together with the ordinary vicissitudes of life, I am of the opinion that a multiplier of 15 is appropriate, in respect of the widow and children.

10. I therefore assess those general damages at $108,000 ($600 x 12 x 15).

11. This sum is apportioned as follows:

12. I am of the view that a lower multiplier is applicable to the mother of the deceased who was aged 63 at the time of her son's death. She is apparently in good health and may live to her late seventies or longer. She might have expected continued partial support from the deceased for the remainder of her life. I am of the opinion that a multiplier of 11 is appropriate in her case. General damages for the mother Fan Yuk Chi are accordingly assessed at $13,200 ($100 x 12 x 11).

13. I allow special damages claimed as follows:

14. The above sum apportioned to the 1st plaintiff for general damages is to be paid to her direct, together with the above sum for special damages. The balance of general damages apportioned to the four children is to be paid into Court.

15. The above sum apportioned to Madam Fan Yuk Chi is to be paid to her direct.

16. Interest is awarded on the special damages of $1,180 at the rate of 4% per annum from 2nd October, 1972 until 11th August, 1976, and on the general damages totalling $121,200.00 at 8% from the date of service of the writ, i.e. 25th June, 1976, until 11th August, 1976.

17. The plaintiffs are awarded costs.

18. Dated this the 24th day of November, 1976.

Representation:

Mr. C.A. White of the Legal Aid Dept. for the Plaintiffs.

Defendant absent.