Cheung Lap Yan and Another v. Siu Ching Kee and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 1462/1979 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 14 June 1982.
1. The Plaintiffs are husband and wife. On Christmas Eve in 1978 the 1st Plaintiff 's brother was driving along the Tuen Mun Highway with/1st Plaintiff's wife sitting beside him. The 1st Defendant drove the 2nd Defendant's car in the opposite direction. It crossed to wrong side of the road, hit the car containing the 2nd Plaintiff and virtually destroyed it.
|
HCA001462/1979
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT ___________ BETWEEN
Coram: Mr Registrar Julian Betts in Chambers Date of Judgment: 14 June 1982 ------------------------------------ ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES ------------------------------------ 1. The Plaintiffs are husband and wife. On Christmas Eve in 1978 the 1st Plaintiff 's brother was driving along the Tuen Mun Highway with/1st Plaintiff's wife sitting beside him. The 1st Defendant drove the 2nd Defendant's car in the opposite direction. It crossed to wrong side of the road, hit the car containing the 2nd Plaintiff and virtually destroyed it. 2. The 1st Plaintiff is claiming special damages only as he was uninjured. 3. The 2nd Plaintiff suffered considerable injury to her face and mouth, so also seeks general damages. 4. I will deal with each separately. 1st Plaintiff 5. The 1st Plaintiff's car was a 1400 cc Audi Saloon of 1975 manufacture. He purchased it just three weeks before the accident for 9614,500. After the accident he obtained an estimate for repairs at $$32,200. Not unreasonably he accepted an offer of $1,200 for the vehicle as scrap. 6. Apart from minor consequential expenses the main part of his claim is the difference between the cost of the car and the scrap value, i.e. $13,300. 7. In support, various estimates were produced including a survey report from Henry Adjusters Company, That survey included the sentence "Due to poor condition car value for settlement HK$6,500.00 - $7,000.00 only recommended". The report then went on to suggest an offer of $1,400 for scrap value. 8. Looking at the report as a whole I can only interpret the sentence I have quoted as the surveyor's view of the pre-accident value of the car - the settlement figure for total loss. 9. I accept that such reports, generally made on behalf of insurers, tend to undervalue rather than overvalue. I also accept that the 1st Plaintiff may have paid a high price to the dealer from whom he bought the car. 10. I assess the value between the two and put it at $10,750.00. 11. I allow the minor incidental claims and assess special damages for the 1st Plaintiff as follows: -
2nd Plaintiff 12. The 2nd Plaintiff suffered injuries which may conveniently be considered under two headings. 1. Facial injuries 13. She was admitted to hospital where it was noted she had:-
14. Surgical toilet and suturing was performed under general anaesthesia. She remained in various hospitals for 16 days. After her release photographs were taken and I have had the advantage of seeing them. 15. There is no doubt her face was badly marred; the most significant scar running deeply from the corner of her right nostril most of the way to the middle of her right ear. Since then she has undergone a series of surgical operations and other treatment with very considerable success. She plans yet further surgery and has an estimate that the minimum expected cost will be $10,000. 16. The effect of the facial injuries has, of course, not been purely physical. The 1st Plaintiff is an assistant Chief electrical engineer and used to take his wife out for social occasions. Understandably she felt unable to do so following the accident. I heard evidence of domestic tensions and disagreements resulting I heard evidence that she felt unable to travel on public transport after, as she thought, passengers on a P.L.B. considered her a "monster". 17. As a result the 2nd Plaintiff has suffered a total loss of social self-confidence. Objectively this is no longer justified and with help I am sure she will adjust to the residual scarring which will remain. However I am satisfied that the feelings she described to me are genuine, are a direct result of the accident and are having a deleterious effect on her home and social life. 2. Dental injuries 18. Oro-dental examination made on 27 December 1978 revealed that four teeth had fractured crowns and two had cracked crowns. Because her facial injuries limited her ability to open her mouth treatment was postponed. On 2 January 1979 two buried fractured teeth were excised under local anaethetic. Between that date and July 1979 further treatment was given and two teeth reconstructed with porcelain crowns. She now also to wear a porcelain bridge with replacement teeth for the upper left lateral and cuspid. 19. The 2nd Plaintiff clearly underwent a painful and traumatic experience. Although the physical disfigurement has almost completely cleared there remains a psychological overlay which affects her daily and family life. For the same reason she may well undergo yet further cosmetic surgery which, on a purely objective test, might not be considered desirable. 20. Mr Pirie referred me to two authorities of assistance in considering quantum. They were Lee Suk Ha v Cheung King & another (No. 418 of 1979), and Cheung Yuk Lin V Sun Tak Ming & others (No. 3007 of 1979). In the light of those he submitted a minimum figure in this case of $35,000. 21. In view of the pain and trauma suffered by the 2nd Plaintiff over a period of some three years and of the continuing psychological effect I assess her damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities at $45,000. 22. There is no claim for loss of earnings or of earning capacity. 23. I consider it reasonable for the 2nd Plaintiff to undergo the further cosmetic treatment she wishes. The only evidence Z have as to the cast is that it will be at least $10,000. That is the figure I award. 24. The Special Damages are awarded as claimed. 25. In summary I assess the damages awarded to the 2nd Defendant as follows:-
26. The special damages will carry interest at the rate of 8.75% per annum from the date of the accident until judgment. The General Damages will carry interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum from the date of service of the writ until judgment. 27. There will be an Order for costs to the Plaintiffs with a Certificate for Counsel. 28. Dated this 14th day of June 1982.
Representation: Mr Nicholas Pirie instructed by Messrs Johnson, Stokes & Master for both Plaintiffs. Both Defendants unrepresented and absent | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||