Lam Kee Pui v. Wong Wa and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 3489/1978 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 26 June 1979.
1. This is an assessment of damages consequent upon injuries suffered by the plaintiff when he was involved in a traffic accident on the 23rd November, 1975.
|
HCA003489/1978
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT -----------------
----------------- Coram: Mr. Registrar Barring ton-Jones in Chambers. Date of Judgment: 26 June 1979 ------------------------------------- ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES ------------------------------------- 1. This is an assessment of damages consequent upon injuries suffered by the plaintiff when he was involved in a traffic accident on the 23rd November, 1975. 2. On the 14th November, 1978 interlocutory judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the defendants with damages to be assessed. 3. The plaintiff's statement of claim having been amended after argument at the hearing, the plaintiff now claims damages in respect of the following injuries:-
General Damages (i) Pain, suffering and loss of amenities 4. The plaintiff was rendered unconscious at the time of the accident, suffering severe epistaxis and facial injuries (as set out at (a) - (c) supra) and was admitted to Kwong Wah Hospital for treatment where the lacerations were sutured and he was discharged from hospital on the 7th December, 1975. 5. The plaintiff was first treated by Dr. K.F. Au in September, 1976 when he complained of loss of sense of smell and nasal obstruction. Dr. Au saw the plaintiff four times but after treatment the plaintiff complained that his sense of smell had not improved at all. Dr. Au told the plaintiff that it was very unlikely that he would recover his sense of smell, and that surgery for this was not recommended. 6. The plaintiff was next seen by Dr. P. C. Hsieh on the 25th January, 1977 who found 3 scars over the patient's face, scars which he considered to be obvious and disturbing. He found diplopia on extreme rotation of the right eye resulting in a definite handicap affecting his vision and a 90% loss of the plaintiff's sense of smell. Dr. Hsieh later advised that the estimated cost of surgical improvement to the plaintiff's face would be about $8,000 to $10,000. 7. Dr. Hsieh also referred the plaintiff to an ophthalmologist Dr. K.H. Lor who found definite evidence of diplopia as well as a mild divergent squint which was, however, not noticeable to the naked eye. 8. Dr. Lor advised that the plaintiff's diplopia does not affect his daily life and in his evidence said that the maximum disability he would give for the permanent condition of the plaintiff's right eye was 10%; and he considered that the plaintiff's disability would not cause any impairment in his trade as a jeweller. 9. Dr. Hsieh in evidence expressed the view that a surgical operation would definitely improve the cosmetic appearance of the plaintiff, but it seemed unlikely that such an operation would have any effect on the plaintiff's impaired vision or his lost sense of smell. Dr. Hsieh said that his quotation of $8,000 to $10,000 for cosmetic surgery in 1977 was very fair, but advised that the current estimate for such an operation would be in the region of $10,000 to $12,500. 10. So what we have here is a jeweller in his forties with fairly severe disfigurement of the face, impaired vision in the right eye, and an almost complete loss of his sense of smell. However, it seems likely that a cosmetic surgical operation would considerably improve the appearance of the plaintiff's face. 11. Mr. Ho, Counsel for the plaintiff referred me to four authorities, as follows:-
12. I have also considered Wong Hon v. Cheng Wai and Anor. (O.J.A. No. 3117 of 1975) reported at 1976 H.K.L.J. 187, and Mr. Registrar Barnett's assessment in Fok Shu-woon and Katherine Poon Ling-yee and Anor. (1978, No. 290). 13. In the present case the plaintiff's troubles are by no means over; he has yet to undergo an operation; he has practically lost his sense of smell, and he will suffer a permanent impairment of vision. 14. I award $32,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenities. 15. I also award $12,500 for the cost of an operation to cosmetically improve the appearance of the plaintiff's face. I have made this award on the basis of private treatment rather than treatment in a government hospital because not only does this appear to be the usual basis but also because I am satisfied that the plaintiff would have to wait for a very long time for what is described as elective surgery in a government hospital. 16. The total general damages are therefore assessed at $44,500. Special Damages 17. A total of $8,600 was claimed. Of this, the following items were not in dispute:-
18. The item of $500 for special food was disputed and I have referred to Mui Ling-kwan & Anor. v. Wong Yin-wah & Anor. (Part IV, 1973 H.K.L.R.p. 465) where McMullin, J. laid down various criteria to be applied when considering a claim of this nature. In that case McMullin, J. said, inter alia:
19. In the instant case the plaintiff admitted that the extra food and Chinese herbs was not recommended by a doctor or other qualified expert. In the circumstances this item is disallowed. 20. I now turn to the plaintiff's disputed claim for $5,410 in respect of air fares to Taiwan, hotel accommodation and medical expenses there. In support of this claim there was exhibited two invoices, together with two cards from the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. The plaintiff said that he went to Taiwan on the recommendation of a friend who had suffered from a similar disability. He averred that whilst he was not given any prescription, he was x-rayed and his head was thoroughly examined by a doctor. In the last analysis, I find this claim to be too remote, and I decline to make any award for it. 21. Total special damages are therefore $3,100. 22. Interest will be awarded pursuant to the guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal in Leung Chat-nui v. Chau King-wai & Anor. (1978, No. 13 (Civil)) at the rate of 7% p.a. on general damages from the date of issue of the writ until judgment and at 4% p. a. on special damages from the date of the accident. The plaintiff is entitled to his costs with a certificate for counsel. 23. Dated this 26th June, 1979.
Representation: Mr. B.K. Ho (Messrs. K.Y. Woo & Co.) for Plaintiff. Mrs. R. Ng (Messrs. Stevenson Low & Co.) for both Defendants. |