Ng Nai Po v. Concorde Construction Co Ltd and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 8028/1981 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. The deceased died on the 2nd July 1980 as a result of an electric shook which he received when he was working on a construction site at 45 Wong Chuk Hangs Road, Aberdeen, Hong Kong. The deceased was helping to store some angle irons that were at the entrance of the site to the top of the hoardings. A loose copper wire that was not properly earthed became live through a leakage in the electricity supply. It appears that the copper mire electrified some metal on the hoardings where the deceased
|
HCA008028/1981 1981 No 8028 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT __________ BETWEEN:
1981 No. 5591 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT __________ BETWEEN:
Coram: Jones, J Date: 15th July,1983. __________ JUDGMENT __________ 1. The deceased died on the 2nd July 1980 as a result of an electric shook which he received when he was working on a construction site at 45 Wong Chuk Hangs Road, Aberdeen, Hong Kong. The deceased was helping to store some angle irons that were at the entrance of the site to the top of the hoardings. A loose copper wire that was not properly earthed became live through a leakage in the electricity supply. It appears that the copper mire electrified some metal on the hoardings where the deceased was working. When the deceased was holding one end of an angle iron, a path for the current to flow through his body could have been completed with the end of the angle iron which was in contact with the wet ground. 2. It is not clear whether the deceased was an employee or a sub-contractor. 3. Compensation of $60,000 was awarded to the dependants of the deceased under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance now the Employees' Compensation Ordinance against the principal contractor Concorde Construction Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called Concorde). Pursuant to Section 25 of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance an action to recover this sum and costs was instituted by Concorde against Intrusion Prepakt (Far East) Ltd. (hereinafter called Prepakt) on the 15th August 1981. 4. The administrator of the deceased subsequently issued proceedings against Concorde and Prepakt on the 13th November 1981 claiming damages for negligence on behalf of the estate and dependants of the deceased. In this action both Concorde and Prepakt have filed a notice claiming an indemnity or contribution against the other as a joint tortfeasor. The two actions were consolidated by an order of the court dated the 3rd June 1982. 5. At the beginning of the trial Concorde admitted liability for the claim on behalf of the deceased under the Occupiers Liability Ordinance. Judgment was entered by consent for the sum of $420,000 and costs. The proceedings by the plaintiff against Prepakt were withdrawn upon determination of the issues between them and Concorde. Both actions were then ordered to be tried together to assess the degree of liability between Concorde and Prepakt. FACTS 6. In 1980 Concorde was the principal contractor for the construction of a multi storey industrial building at 45 Wong Chuk Hang Road. Prepakt was the main sub-contractor for the caisson work which was in turn sub-contracted to Ah Chiang (Foundation Work). Electricity for the site was supplied to Prepakt in September 1978 by the Hong Kong Electric Company Ltd. and meter No. 24232 was installed. Prepakt completed their work on the site in about April 1979. In August 1979 a separate meter No. 18471 was installed at the site for Concorde. 7. Later Prepakt received a contract to do the caisson work at the adjoining premised 41-43 Wong Chuk Hang Road which started in January 1980. As the supply of electricity to 45 Wong Chuk Hang Road had not been disconnected Prepakt decided to extend the supply from No. 45 instead of making an application for a separate meter. It is not in dispute that this was done in order to save money and time. 8. Mr. Lee Ming an electrician was engaged by Prepakt to carry out this work. Four wires were led from the meter at No, 45 around three wooden poles 14 feet high which were placed in the ground and were attached to hoardings about 8 feet nigh that were in front of the site at No. 45. Although Mr. Lee said the wires were new he did not deny that they were not guarded. Mr. Lee understood that this arrangement was only a temporary measure which he thought would be for about one or two mouths. After the installation Mr. Lee was not required to inspect or maintain the equipment. He agreed that the normal practice where caisson work is being carried out is for the Hong Kong Electric Company Ltd. to provide the supply underground 9. Mr. Price the Assistant Chief Engineer of the Hong Kong Electric Company Ltd. whose evidence I accept said that he would not have sanctioned the supply of electricity by means of attaching wires to wooden poles unless they were very well protected. However, ho would in any event disapprove the extension of a supply from one site to another. Ho said that the approved method of supply is by means of cables laid underground. 10. After the accident the following findings were made by Mr. Liu a technician of the Hong Kong Electric Company Ltd.:-
11. It is common ground that when the system was installed no permission had been sought by Prepakt from Concorde for the wires to be suspended on their site. Further no inspections on maintenance were carried out by Prepakt and no complaints were made by Concorde with regard to the presence of the system on their site. 12. Mr. Chow, Prepakt's senior engineer agreed that the system adopted was a short cut. He visited the site three or fcur times a week, but paid no attention to the installation. He said that when the hoardings were removed after about two months the view of the had become obscured. Nevertheless he claimed that he did not appreciate the risks that could be caused by the e posed wires. I found Mr. Chow to be an unreliable and evasive witness. Whilst he accepted some blame should be attached to Prebalit the general tenor of his evidence was to shift the responsibility elsewhere. I reject his testimony that he did not realise that a potentially dangerous situation could result from this system as palpably untrue. 13. It is also common ground that Concorde was aware of the presence of the system on their site some months before the accident, and took no steps to have the situation rectified. Concorde vas therefore in breach of its duty of care. 14. There was no direct evidence to show how the state of affairs carne to be in existence at the date of the accident, bit I have been asked by counsel to draw certain inferences. Mr. Barretto submitted that Corcorde had failed to inspect or maintain the installation and did not warn Prepakt of the altered situation to the wiring. However, there was no evidence that Concorde had used this electricity supply or had taken it upon themselves to maintain the equipment. The argument that Prepakt should. have been armed if Concorde was in fact responsible is a complete contradiction. I therefore reject this argument. FINDINGS 15. I have no hesitation in making the following findings of fact:-
16. Having regard to the evidence I am satisfied that Prepakt must bear the greater responsibility for the accident. 17. I apportion liability for damages to Concorde at 25% and to Prepakt at 75% with costs in the same proportion. 18. Accordingly there will be judgment for Concorde in these terms.
Representation: Mr. Ozorio (D.L.A.) for Plaintiff Mr. Pirie (Johnson Stokes & Master) for 1st Defendant Mr. Barretto (Deacons) for 2nd Defendant. |