Chan Mei Kam v. Hong Kong Tramways Ltd and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 164/1977 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. The deceased died aged 56 on 1st August, 1974 after falling down the stairs of a tram. The plaintiff as administratrix of the estate now seeks damages under Caps. 22 and 23. Interlocutory judgment on the basis of 90% liability has been entered.
|
HCA000164/1977
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT -----------------
----------------- Coram: Mr. Registrar Barnett in Chambers. Date of Judgment: 30th September 1977. Mr. Niamatullah (Yu, Tsang & Loong) for Plaintiff. Mr. Munro of Hastings & Co. for both Defendants. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The deceased died aged 56 on 1st August, 1974 after falling down the stairs of a tram. The plaintiff as administratrix of the estate now seeks damages under Caps. 22 and 23. Interlocutory judgment on the basis of 90% liability has been entered. 2. As to damages under Cap. 23, the defendants concede that $10,000 for loss of expectation of life is the proper figure. I award this sum. 3. As to Fatal Accidents damages, the plaintiff claims for herself and 5 children namely:
4. These ages are all as at the date of the deceased's death. 5. The evidence given and called by the plaintiff is uncontested and unshaken. I find that at his death the deceased was giving the plaintiff $1,000 per month out of which she maintained herself and the 3 younger children. A negligible amount may have gone towards meals for the deceased when he visited the plaintiff at weekends but I disregard this. 6. The deceased was earning $1,100 per month as head of the cutting section in the garment-making department of Perfekta Enterprises Ltd. He also received 2 extra months' salary as a bonus each year. In addition he earned a net sum of $320 per month as tutor in an evening tailoring class. He was in good health. His work was of a sedentary nature. He was considered as good and hardworking by his employers. He might have been considered for promotion to the post of supervisor which carries a current salary of $2,500 per month. 7. As to the multiplicand, a dependency of $1,000 per month as in 1974 has been established. However, it is clear from the evidence that the family is determined to have the best education. The 3 younger children are either at university or intending to go on to university from school. The 2 elder children are teachers. Therefore the 3 younger children would have remained dependent for some years yet. Much has been made of future contributions by the children once they start earning. I have no doubt they would have contributed (and indeed will), and that such contributions would have been gratefully received; equally I have no doubt that the deceased would not have shirked his responsibility and would have continued to provide substantially. 8. I discount the possibility of promotion. That is too speculative. There is however evidence that the salary of cutters has increased by about 20% since 1974. Undoubtedly the deceased would have received an increase since 1974 and undoubtedly he would have received increases in the future. He was a responsible and hardworking parent. He would in all probability have increased the monthly payment to the plaintiff. 9. In all the circumstances, I put the dependency at $1,200 per month. 10. Various cases were cited to me in connection with the appropriate multiplier. Each very much depends on its own facts. Mr. Niamatullah produced a variety of figures, for example, a deceased aged 68 where a multiplier of 8 was adopted, and a deceased coolie aged 53 where the multiplier was 11. 11. The deceased in the instant case was in good health. He obviously enjoyed his work. I consider he would have continued to work until well after 65. I think the proper multiplier should be 8, which will take into account the usual factors. 12. Damages under the Fatal Accidents Ordinance are therefore $115,200, which I apportion as follows:
13. I understand that the plaintiff will be the beneficiary of the award of Law Reform damages which will therefore merge with her Fatal Accidents award. 14. Burial and funeral expenses are also claimed as special damages in the sum of $6,260.40. Considerable argument was addressed to me on this point as to what was and was not proper and reasonable. Suffice it to say that I think all the items should be allowed with the exception of the bill for $1,250 for entertaining the mourners who had travelled to Cheung Chau for the funeral. Even if only plain fare was provided I do not consider the defendants liable for this. I award $5,010.40. 15. As to interest, Cookson v. Knowles has been canvassed before me. I agree with the decision of Mr. Registrar O'Dea in Action No. 789/75. I award interest at the rate of 4% on special damages and 8% on general damages in accordance with Jefford v. Gee. 16. A payment has been made into court. The balance, if any, is to be paid into court by the defendants within 14 days. The awards to Siu-lai and Yee-tak are to be invested by the Registrar and administered in the usual manner. 17. If appropriate, the plaintiff to have costs of the assessment. 18. Liberty to apply. 19. Dated this 30th day of September, 1977.
Representation: Mr. Niamatullah (Yu, Tsang & Loong) for Plaintiff. Mr. Munro of Hastings & Co. for both Defendants. |