Li Ping Sum v. Chan Wai Tong and Others

HCA000810/1982

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

___________

BETWEEN

______________

Coram: Master J.W. Hansen in Chambers

Date: 7th March, 1983.

Appearances: Mr Murray instructed by D.L.A. for Plaintiff

Miss A. Mok instructed by Gallant Y.T. Ho & Co for 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant

Stevensons & Co for 3rd Defendant - absent

-----------------------------------------

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

-----------------------------------------

1. The Plaintiff Li Ping Sum was injured on the 30th of January 1981 when the Public Light Bus in which she was travelling lost control and overturned in Prince Edward Road. According to the medical reports she suffered from compression fractures of the T11, T12 r L1 vertebrae. She was discharged from Queen Elizabeth Hospital the following day. She was readmitted on the 16th February 1981 and hospitalised for 9 days. A medical report from. Dr Dickinson of Anderson & Partner's was produced on behalf of the Plaintiff. He assessed her permanent disability at 25%. On the other hand a medical report by Dr Chan produced on behalf of the defendant put the permanent disability at 15%.

2. In her evidence the Plaintiff stated she still suffered from pain and she could not sit in the same position for long. She said this was particularly difficult for her as her employment as an accountant required her to sit for long periods. She also gave evidence of having seen no fewer than 5 different doctors and a bone setter since the accident. This was in addition to the medical staff of Q.E.H. I am quite satisfied that the Plaintiff, perhaps understandably, has greatly exaggerated her condition. I have no doubt she does suffer pain but her situation is not as bad as tried to convince me it was.

Pain Suffering & Loss of Amenities

3. Mr Murray urged me to award a figure in the region of $35,000. He said this was supported by the H.K. authorities. He cited Leung Yui Kin v Lai Ping-sum HCA 2579/76 where $30,000 was awarded; Yu Kam So v Leung Hee where the award was $25,000; Lawrence v China Motor Bus HCA 885/80 where $40,000 was awarded. Mr Murray also referred me to 3 English cases where awards ranged from £3,500 - £8,500. However, the quantum of damages here is to be found in the H.K. cases - Lee Ting-lam v Leung Kam Ming [1980] HKLR 657 at 659. Miss Mok on the other hand submitted that all the cases cited by Mr Murray dealt with injuries that, whilst similar in nature to those suffered by the Plaintiff, were of far greater severity than hers. She submitted an award of $25,00 - $30,000 is appropriate in all the circumstances. I uphold that submission. Repeating what I said earlier the Plaintiff has clearly exaggerated her condition. Allowing or the fall in the value of money as I am bound to do (Lee Ting Lam v Leung Kam Ming (supra)) I award $27,500.

Special Damages

4. Bonesetter Fees

5. The Plaintiff claimed $1,000. She first saw the bonesetter the day after she left hospital on the 31 1. 81. She continued to see him for some time even though she was receiving physiotherapy at Kowloon Hospital at the same time. She has failed to justify the need to see the bonesetter. The claim is disallowed.

6. Hospital Expenses

7. This was agreed and I award $45.00.

8. Doctor's Fees

9. The Plaintiff claimed $3,500. Again, repeating what I said earlier, she attended 5 doctors besides those at Q.E.H. Clearly, it was not necessary for the Plaintiff to consult all these doctors. I accept, however, that she was entitled to seek a second opinion. In the circumstances I am placed in I can only decide on a figure arbitrarily. I award $500.

10. Nourishing Food

11. The Plaintiff gave no evidence to support this claim. I accept that this claim should be allowed in part and award $500.

12. Travelling Expenses

13. Miss Mok submitted that the Plaintiff was only entitled to $109.20 not the $580 claimed. She said this represented 78 return bus trips to Kowloon Hospital. She accepted the Plaintiff had 78 physiotherapy sessions at Kowloon Hospital. However, I think something should be allowed for taxis especially during the early part of the treatment. I award $250.

14. Loss of Earnings

15. The Plaintiff claimed $5,200. Her evidence was she earned $1,950 p.m. at that time. She said she was off work 4 months but she got full pay for February and March, 2/3rds for April and none at all for May. She further stated she worked only ½ day from June until mid September. However, the medical report only recommended 2 months off work. Miss Mok conceded another 2 months, but, she said nothing more should be allowed. In the absence of medical evidence to support the time off work I accept her submission. The Plaintiff's loss therefore was $650 for April and $1,950 for May. Accordingly I award $2,600.

Summary

16. There will be interest on the general damages at the rate of 14% from the date of the service of the writ until judgment. The special damages will carry interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of the accident until judgment.

17. At the request of the parties costs will be reserved with liberty to apply. There will be a certificate for counsel.

Representation:

Mr Murray instructed by D.L.A. for Plaintiff

Miss A. Mok instructed by Gallant Y.T. Ho & Co for 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant

Stevensons & Co for 3rd Defendant - absent