Chan Hong v. Foo Yee Nui

HCA008170/1982

BETWEEN

__________

Coram: Hon. Penlington, J. in Court

Date: 26th May, 1983

__________

JUDGMENT

___________

1. This claim is the result of an accident on the 29th December 1981 when the plaintiff, who was then aged 76, was shopping in the Pei Ho Street Market. She purchased some vegetables and alleged that while she was removing some rotten leaves from the vegetables the defendant who was a hawker in the market, came up and remonstrated with her for throwing the leaves down.  She then pushed her over onto the ground, as a result of which her left femur was fractured.

2. The plaintiff also called a Miss Hui Po-hing who largely supported the plaintiff's version of what had happened. She said that she saw the dispute and that both the plaintiff and the defendant were engaged in a struggle and were hitting each other. She said the defendant pushed the plaintiff who fell to the ground and that Miss Hui then helped her up. The plaintiff however was in pain and Miss Hui telephoned the Police. She said she did not see how the fight started nor did she see who dealt the first blow.

3. The defendant gave evidence and unfortunately elected to give a version which quite clearly was untrue. She denied assaulting the plaintiff at all and indeed said there was no struggle or fight between. She said that the plaintiff was throwing rotten leaves onto the ground and that she scolded her for doing so. She said however that there was always a distance between them and that she did not know how the plaintiff came to fall. I am quite satisfied that that evidence was untrue. I accept the evidence given by the plaintiff and by the independent witness, Miss Hui, and I am satisfied that the defendant did attack the plaintiff and that she did push her to the ground as a result which the plaintiff received the injuries set out in the medical evidence. The defendant was convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm in the magistrate's court on 29th March, 198

4. The plaintiff was examined by Doctor Wedderburn and he said that as a result of the accident she moves very slowly, cautiously and requires support. He said that if she attempted to walk without such support she would fall. There is a half inch shortening of the left leg and limited rotation. He assessed her impairment of the leg as 5% from shortening and 17% from loss of hip joint movement. This is a 22% impairment of the leg and is a  9% impairment of the whole person.

5. The plaintiff lives with her son and daughter-in-law and used to look after the household including her grandchildren because both her son and daughter-in-law get out to work. She is now incapable of any house work and an amah has to be hired for two to three hours morning and evening. The plaintiff however can dress herself but obviously is now limited as to her independent movement.

6. Doctor Wedderburn also found that the plaintiff is suffering from Diabetes which is entirely unconnected with her accident. As a result of this her life expectation is probably reduced by about half. As she has to take pills for the Diabetes and she also takes pills because of pain and discomfort resulting from her hip injury.

7. There will be judgment for the plaintiff as follows: -

8. There will be interest at 7% on the special damages excluding the cost of the part-time amah from July 1982 on at 7% from the date of the injury. There will be interest on the general damages at 14% from the date of the service of the writ.

9. The only other matter which concerns me about this case is that the defendant says in evidence, and I have no reason to disbelieve her on that point, that she is totally depended on her daughter and is now aged 66. She says she is no longer working as a hawker.   If this is so, it would seem likely that the plaintiff will not be able to recover the damages awarded. She may be well advised to consult the Social Welfare Department's Criminal Injuries Compensation Section.

Representation:

Thomas Lai (D.L.A.) for the Plaintiff.

Defendant in person.