Wong Pak v. Ng Po Chui
Read the full judgment text of HCA 5463/1981 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 7 May 1982.
1. On 13th September 1980 the Plaintiff, then aged 67, was knocked down by a motor car negligently driven by the Defendant.
Cited by 2 cases
|
HCA005463/1981
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT ___________ BETWEEN
____________ Coram: Mr Registrar Julian Betts in Chambers Date: 7 May 1982 ------------------------------- Assessment of Damages ------------------------------- 1. On 13th September 1980 the Plaintiff, then aged 67, was knocked down by a motor car negligently driven by the Defendant. 2. The Plaintiff suffered subarachnoid haemorrhage and brain contusion requiring hospitalisation until 24th October 1980. On admission to hospital he become comatose and was operated on by making three burr holes in the skull. He later developed pneumonia and had a tracheotomy. Four or five days after admission he developed post-traumatic amnesia and did not recognise his family for two weeks. 3. For some six months after discharge from hospital the Plaintiff was not able to look after himself at home and required fairly constant attention. 4. On 2nd June 1981 he was examined by Dr Wedderburn and listed six continuing complaints, viz:-
5. He could dress himself but required help to get in and out of the bath. He did not go out except for essential visits and never unaccompanied. 6. On examination Dr Wedderburn found very mild deafness for low tones in both ears, but no abnormality of the eyes. The reflexes of the right arm were grossly exaggerated indicating a tendency to spastic paresis or partial paralysis indicative of brain damage. 7. Dr Wedderburn concluded there was no doubt the Plaintiff had suffered severe concussion and brain damage and required some degree of supervision. He assessed a 20% impairment of the whole man with an additional 8% impairment from weakness of the right arm and left leg. He was unfit for any form of work, had become a mild burden on his family requiring help and some degree of supervision. 8. On further examination by the same doctor in March 1982 some improvement was found in the Plaintiff's condition. His dizzy spells were minor and infrequent; a previous tendency to fall had gone the strength of his right arm had improved and he could move it some 20° above his shoulder. He could bath and dress himself without help. His memory had slightly improved but there was still gross weakness in the legs. The Plaintiff was still incapable of work and would continue to require some degree of supervision. 9. The percentage of impairment had decreased from 2816 to 20°6 but age would be likely to increase his difficulties over the next two or three years. 10. Prior to the accident the Plaintiff was employed as a casual worker in a garment factory. His job was to take material to the workers who were making the garments. I heard evidence that the factory employed some 250 workers, the oldest of which was "70 odd". I have no reason to suppose the Plaintiff would not have continued working to that age and assess his damages on that basis. 11. His pay was calculated at a basic daily wage of $33 with various allowances added. I was given total figures for May, June, July and August 1980. They were $886.50, $799.50, $1,170 and $944 respectively giving an average monthly figure of $950. That is the figure I adopt for the purposes of this assessment. 12. At the tame of the accident the Plaintiff's family, living together, consisted of himself, his wife, his son and his daughter-in-law. They were all working. It was decided that one of the others would have to give up work, at least for a time, to look after the Plaintiff. It was considered that in view of her age it would be more difficult for the Plaintiff's wife to obtain future employment if she left her job so the daughter-in-law would do so. That appears to have been a very sensible decision and she has now returned to work. I will allow the claim for her loss of earnings for the necessary full time attendance on the Plaintiff after his discharge from hospital. I will not allow it for the month claimed before his discharge. So far as her wages are concerned the evidence was scant and purported to show a figure slightly higher than the $860 a month in the Statement of Claim. I propose to adopt the lower figure. 13. I will now deal with the heads of damage. General damages for pain, suffering and lose of amenities 14. Mr Sullivan directed my attention to Lee Ting-lam v Leung Kam-ming [1980] HKLR 657. He submitted that at the time of the medical report in June 1980 the injuries could seem to be at the lower end of the second category; that is substantial injury in the range of $80,000 to $100,000. The improvement by March 1982 took the claim down into the first category that is serious injury in the range of $60,000 to $80,000. Mr Yeung referred me to a number of assessments dealing with brain and head injuries. He suggested the maximum for the most serious case was in the region of $90,000 with the most recent and similar; Tang Bing-yiu v Cheung Wing-hing & KMB [1981] HKLJ 121; being $32,000. He suggested that figure be adopted in this cases. 15. Having considered all the authorities I find myself in agreement with Mr Sullivan. In Lee Ting-lam v Leung Kam-ming (supra) Cons J.A. defined the first category as "cases where the injury leaves a disability which mare general activities and enjoyment of life, but allows a reasonable mobility to the victim". I find the continuing disability of the Plaintiff to be at the top end of that category. In the same judgment Cons J.A. also said
16. That was two years ago and I propose to add 20% to my assessment under this head for just that reason. The sum assessed for pain, suffering and loss of amenities is $96,000.00. Special Damages
Summary 17. There will be an award as follows:-
18. There will be interest on the general damages at the rate of 17.5% per annum from the date of service of the writ to date and at the rate of 8.75% per annum on the sum of $24,940,00 special damages at (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) & (f) supra. 19. Costs to Plaintiff to be taxed under Legal Aid Regulations. 20. Dated this 7th day of May 1982.
Representation: S.J. Sullivan Esq., Director of Legal Aid for Plaintiff Mr dally Yeung instructed by Messrs Woo, Kwan, Lee & Co for Defendant |
Other judgments that cite this case