Chu Dick Sang v. Lau Kwok Wai
Read the full judgment text of HCA 2375/1983 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. The Plaintiff is a married man, now aged 42, holding the rank of Inspector in the Marine division of the Royal Hong Kong Police. He was granted leave from 30th December 1980 to 31st January 1981 but on 1.40 a.m. on the first of those days was involved in a traffic accident caused by the negligence of the Defendant.
|
HCA002375/1983 1983 No. 2375 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT ____________ BETWEEN
_____________ Coram: Master Betts in Chambers Date: 2nd August 1983 Appearances: Miss A. Liu of Messrs H. M. So & Co for Plaintiff Defendant in person, unrepresented. ___________________ Assessment of Damages ___________________ 1. The Plaintiff is a married man, now aged 42, holding the rank of Inspector in the Marine division of the Royal Hong Kong Police. He was granted leave from 30th December 1980 to 31st January 1981 but on 1.40 a.m. on the first of those days was involved in a traffic accident caused by the negligence of the Defendant. 2. The Plaintiff was taken to the Pok Oi Hospital and then transferred the same day to the Princess Margaret Hospital. 3. His injuries were:-
On admission the lacerations were sutured and the fractures enoased in Plaster-of-Paris. 4. After 9 days he was transferred to the British Military Hospital where he remained until the 12th February. On that day the plaster casts were changed to below knee walking plasters and he was discharged on sick leave for a further 4 weeks of gentle mobilisation. He was then re-admitted for a final week when the plaster was removed and he underwent intensive physiotherapy and mobilization. He was then put on light duties for a month. 5. The final paragraph in the report of his surgeon at BMH dated 19th October 1981, records:-
6. The Plaintiff then returned to full duty but complains that even now his feet feel "feeble and painful" and preclude him from playing football, water skiing and running. His duties are slightly affected and he is less mobile in clambering about in boats. Although he is now Officer in Command of an inshore patrol group he believes his chances of promotion to be adversely affected. In July 1982 the Plaintiff was examined by Dr P. A. L. Horsfall who prepared a report and gave oral evidence before me. At the time of the examination he was unable to find any objective evidence to support the Plaintiff's claim to weakness in the right leg but conceded that there might have been some cartilage damage which would not necessarily be detected on clinical or radiological examination but could cause minor symptoms. 7. Both he and Dr Mellor of BMH agreed on the possibility of degenerative changes resulting within the next decade. 8. The Plaintiff also gave evidence, and I am satisfied, he is genuinely still feeling some impairment resulting from the injuries he received though perhaps not to the extent he claims. 9. No evidence was called to support his belief that his future earning capacity is harmed. He is still engaged in active duties and, at his age, I take it to be a fair assumption that further promotion would be to a less rather than more physically demanding role. I make no award for loss of future earning capacity. 10. I am also asked to consider the cosmetic results of the lacerations of the head. The Plaintiff has one scar above the hair line which is of no visual effect unless and until his hair recedes. He has one small scar above the right eyebrow which can be seen if pointed out and some scaring of the right forearm. Aesthetically the effect is, at most, minimal. 11. Discounting the cosmetic results almost entirely; discounting the claimed present physical disability very largely; but making due allowance for the effect of such disability as does exist on the Plaintiff's physical self confidence and allowing for the possibility of future degenerative changes, I assess damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities at $30,000: 12. A number of items of special damages were claimed, were not contested; were proved and were reasonable. They are awarded in full and are summarised infra. 13. Two items, however, have caused me concern and I will deal with each. 14. The first is set out as follows:-
The Plaintiff's contention is that he spent his leave in hospital, and is still entitled to a vacation. If he now takes a month vacation it will be without pay. 15. I find this argument lacking both logic and merit and it is not awarded. 16. The second item is $840 paid to a private Doctor for an examination after the Plaintiff was discharged from BMH. He had no complaint at all of his treatment at BMH and obtaining a further opinion from another source at that stage was quite unnecessary. That item is also not awarded. 17. Summary General Damages for pain
18. There will be interest on the general Damages of $30,00from the date of service of the writ to to-day at the rate of 2% pa and on the special damages from the date of the accident to to-day at the rate of 5.5% pa. 19. There will be costs to the Plaintiff.
Representation: Miss A. Liu of Messrs H. M. So & Co for Plaintiff Defendant in person, unrepresented. |