Tse Fuk Lin v. Lee Kai and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 1426/1983 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 7 May 1984.
1. Mr Lee chuen Sang was advised of the procedures to be adopted. He was also advised of his right to cross examine; to give evidence and call witnesses; and to make submissions. However, apart from a few irrelevant submissions he did not exercise his rights.
Cited by 3 cases
|
HCA001426/1983
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT ___________ BETWEEN
Coram: Master Hansen in Chambers Date of Hearing: 16 April 1984 Date of Delivery: 7 May 1984 __________________________ ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES __________________________ 1. Mr Lee chuen Sang was advised of the procedures to be adopted. He was also advised of his right to cross examine; to give evidence and call witnesses; and to make submissions. However, apart from a few irrelevant submissions he did not exercise his rights. 2. On the 26th February 1981 the plaintiff's left hand was severely crushed by a clicking press in the defendant's factory. At the time the plaintiff was aged 26 years and had been employed by the defendants for about 6 months. 3. The writ was issued on the 2nd February 1983 and upon the defendants failure to ... (illegible) judgment was entered on the 10th August 1983. 4. Pursuant to a notice under 0.38 RSC the following documents were produced:-
5. Mr Wedderburn's report reveals that as a result of the accident the plaintiff's left hand suffered amputation of the index, middle and ring finger. The 5th finger also suffered crushing injuries. Revision amputation of the three fingers was performed at Queen Mary Hospital and the plaintiff was discharged after 2 days. Mr Wedderburn was satisfied that the left hand was the plaintiff's preferred hand. He assessed his total impairment at 26%. This figure was closely in accordance with that of 25% reached by the Medical Board. 6. The sick leave certificates revealed that the plaintiff was recommended sick leave from the26th February 1981 until the 15th August 1981. 7. The documents from the Education Department showed that the plaintiff commenced employment as a Workman II on the 15th November 1982. He earned $1,910 until March 1983 when his salary was increased to $2020. The documents also show that he has no prospects of promotion in the foreseeable future. 8. The E.C.C. agreement revealed that the plaintiff received $56,972.78 in employees compensation. 9. The plaintiff gave evidence. He recounted the accident and his medical treatment. He stated that following his discharge from hospital he attended physiotherapy treatment 60 times. His travelling expenses were $1.40 per visit. He also bought and used $300 worth of ginseng because it would help compensate for the blood he lost. Finally, he gave details of his earnings. When he worked for the defendants he worked 26 days per month and his average daily wage was $94.12. (This was confirmed by the E.C.C. argeement) He did not recommence employment until October/November 1981. He then worked as an unlicenced hawker selling fish. His income was $500-$600 per month. From November 1982 he has been employed as a workman and he confirmed the figures contained in the documents prepared by the Education Department. Pain Suffering and Loss of Amenities 10. Mr McCormick referred me to two authorities. In Mak Kwok Ping v Lui Nam trading as Nam Ying Creasing Paper Box Factory HCA 7084/83 where Master Clay awarded $75,000 in October 1983. The injuries were similar and the impairment of the whole man was said to be 28%. In Ng Wing Wah v Chun Hing Metal and Plastic Mould Factory HCA 5389/83 a 34% impairment of the whole man led to an award of $90,000. The hand injuries were more serious in that case, however. That award was in December 1983. The impairment in the first case cited was only slightly worse than the plaintiff's. Also the award was approximately 6 months ago. In the circumstances I consider the same quantum to be appropriate and I award $75,000. Pre Trial Loss of Earnings 11. This head of the claim falls into 3 categories:-
Loss of Future Earnings 12. But for his accident and allowing for inflation the plaintiff would have been earning $3,257.11 p.m. at the time of the hearing. From that is to be deducted his present income. The problem relating to that is that the government has not yet announced its wage increases. In these circumstances I proposed to adopt the 10% p.a. figure. His present salary is then deemed to be $2,222. The appropriate multiplicand is therefore:- 13. $3,257.11 - $2,222 = $1,035.11 p.m. 14. Mr McCormick said the average multiplier shown in the appendix to Martin & Rhodes for a 29 year old male is 14 years. I consider the appropriate multiplier to be 15 years. The award is:- 15. $1,035.11 x 12 x 15 = $186.319.80. Travelling Expenses 16. I award $84 as claimed. Nourishing Food 17. I award $300 as claimed. Summary
18. There will be a credit for the E.C.C. payment of $56,972.78. 19. Interest on the Special Damages at the rate of 6.75% p.a. from the date of the accident to the date of the judgment and on the damages for pain suffering and loss of amenities at the rate of 2% p.a. from that date of the service of the writ until judgment. I understand the two defendants were served on different dates. The interest will run from the earlier date. 20. There will be costs to the plaintiff to be paid by the defendant. The plaintiff's own costs will be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulation.
Representation: Mr McCormick D.L.A. for Plaintiff Lee Chuen Sang defendant present Lee Kai defendant absent |
Other judgments that cite this case