Leung Kit Ping v. Mui Chung Foon and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 719/1970 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. The infant Plaintiff is a young girl now aged 16 who was run down by a motorbus driven by the first Defendant and owned by the second Defendant in 1969. The Defendants have accepted liability for the accident and in this decision I am simply concerned with the quantum of damages. The evidence deduced to me by the Plaintiff at this hearing was confined to ten medical reports all of which have been agreed by the parties. The main injuries sustained by the Plaintiff were two fractures of the man
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT -----------------
Coram: Mr. Registrar Mayo in Chambers Date of Judgment: 30th December, 1976. Mr. Denis Chang instructed by M/s. Philip K.H. Wong & Co. for plaintiff. Mr. Herman Poon instructed by M/s. Johnson, Stokes & Master for defendants. --------------------------------------------------- ASEESSMENT OF DAMAGES DECISION --------------------------------------------------- 1. The infant Plaintiff is a young girl now aged 16 who was run down by a motorbus driven by the first Defendant and owned by the second Defendant in 1969. The Defendants have accepted liability for the accident and in this decision I am simply concerned with the quantum of damages. The evidence deduced to me by the Plaintiff at this hearing was confined to ten medical reports all of which have been agreed by the parties. The main injuries sustained by the Plaintiff were two fractures of the mandible, that is, her jaw bone. Her jaws were wired together for three months. She also suffered concussion and was unable to recognise her mother until the third day after the accident. She also lost one of her front teeth. She apparently suffered considerable post-concussional headaches in the first year and on two occasions suffered mild epileptic attacks. There was also reference in the papers to a diminution of her mental capacities. Evidence of this is not entirely satisfactory as there is no measure of the Plaintiff's intelligence prior to the accident. She was however examined by Lt. Col. William Green who is a consultant psychologist and he performed an intelligence test on the Plaintiff which indicated that she is in the 50th percentile which is indicative of her intelligence quotient being exactly average for her age. Apparently her performance in school prior to the accident was average to good. It appears to have been accepted that she now has more difficulty in concentrating over a period of time than was hitherto the case and I do accept that her mental capacity may have been slightly diminished. It is more likely however that any deterioration in her educational standards was more attributable to her absence from her studies due to her receiving medical treatment than to an impairment of her mentality. The Plaintiff does however appear to have made a remarkably good recovery from her injuries. I was able to myself see her in Chambers and it is not immediately evident that she has received any injuries. On close inspection it is perhaps evident that there is some asymmetry of her jaws. There is also a small scar near to her right ear but this is not immediately noticeable and does not seriously detract from her over all appearance. More important, it would appear from the tests which have been conducted by Dr. Hunter that because she has not suffered a recurrence of epileptic seizures it is highly improbable that she will be incapacited in this manner. It would appear from the medical reports that she has a one or two percent chance of epilepsy which would cause a 5% impairment of her whole person. This could however be controlled by administering medication. The Plaintiff is now working in a factory and is earning nearly as much as her sister who is two years older than she is. I do not think that there has been any loss in her earning capacity. I consider that the only logical way for me to consider this award of damages is to take the situation as a whole. Having heard all of the matters canvassed to me by counsel and considered all of the relevant case law for injuries of this nature I have decided that an appropriate award of general damages would be $22,500.00. Counsel have not addressed me on the subject of special damages. I propose inviting counsel to attend before me when I deliver this judgment so that they might have an opportunity of addressing me on this subject. 2. Mr. Poon submitted to me that I should not award interest on the general damages in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Jefford v. Gee (C.A.)(1) in view of the inordinate delay there had been in bringing these proceedings. With respect I do not find myself in agreement with this view. In a case of this nature where there have been serious head injuries it is most important to allow a period of time to elapse before attempting to quantify damages as the full nature and extent of the injuries may not manifest themselves for some time. The medical reports clearly support this view of the matter. I therefore order that interest at the rate of 8% shall be payable on the sum of $22,500.00 from the date of the issue of the writ, i.e. the 16th May, 1970. 3. The Plaintiff shall have costs and there shall be a certificate for counsel. 4. Dated this the 30th day of December, 1976.
Representation: Mr. Denis Chang instructed by M/s. Philip K.H. Wong & Co. for plaintiff. Mr. Herman Poon instructed by M/s. Johnson, Stokes & Master for defendants. (1) 1970 2 Q.B. 130. |