Suen Kam Wai v. Cheung Yam

Read the full judgment text of HCA 5466/1982 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 17 January 1983.

1. The Plaintiff was injured when a lorry, owned and driven by the Defendant, was in collision with another vehicle on Sha Tau Kok Road near Fanling at 5.25 a.m. on the 5th June 1981.

Case No.HCA 5466/1982
Court
High Court CFI
Date17 Jan 1983
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA005466/1982

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KUNG

HIGH COURT

_________

BETWEEN

SUEN KAM WAI Plaintiff

and

CHEUNG YAM Defendant

_________

Coram: Master Hansen in Chambers

Date: 17 January 1983

Appearances : Mr B. Chow instructed by Hastings & Co for the Plaintiff. Defendant absent.

________________________

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

________________________

1. The Plaintiff was injured when a lorry, owned and driven by the Defendant, was in collision with another vehicle on Sha Tau Kok Road near Fanling at 5.25 a.m. on the 5th June 1981.

2. The Defendant has taken no steps in his matter and interlocutory judgment was entered against him on the 26th July 1982.

3. As a result of the accident the Plaintiff was admitted to QEH where an emergency operation was performed. The right kidney was found to be lacerated beyond repair and nephrectomy was done. Dr H. C. HO, who was responsible for the Plaintiff's treatment in QEH, stated that the loss of the right kidney had resulted in renal function tests revealing marginal impairment. In lay terms he explained that this meant some toxic substances would be retained in the body due to impaired execration as a result of which the Plaintiff would tire more readily. He also stated that the adhesion over the intra-abdominal organs resulting from the operation could give rise to an operation some time within the next 10-20 years. He put the chance of such an operation eventuating at around 10%.

4. The Plaintiff gave evidence that he was aged 57 at the time of the accident. Following the accident he was in hospital for 20 days. He then convalesced at home and was only able to return to work on the 1st October 1981. On that date he returned to his former employment as a welder with Kwong Ngai Steel Works. He gave evidence that prior to the accident he earned ;6118.50 per weekday working from 8 a.m. - 7 p.m. and on Sundays he earned the same sum working from 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. He stated that he always worked on Sundays. The Plaintiff's evidence relating to his income and days of work was confirmed by Mr Mok Kwong the proprietor of Kwong Ngai Steel Works.

5. The Plaintiff also gave evidence of attending out-patientclinics during his convalescence and after his return to work. Between 5.6.81 and 1.10.81 he attended once a week. From the 1.10.81 up to the end of 1981 he attended fortnightly. From the beginning of 1982 until the end of April 1982 he attended monthly. He said that each round trip cost $14.

6. He said that he found his work much more tiring than before the accident. Although he was able to do the same work as before he left much more tired and sleepy at the end of the working day than previously. He also stated that sometimes he felt nauseous. This had resulted from the accident.

General Damages

Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenities

               Mr Chow referred me to two authorities. The first was the decision of Silke J. in Chan Chuen v Cheng Ka Kui and Chow Keung Kwong v Cheng Ka Kui HCA 2455/78. In that case Mr Chow lost a kidney and the spleen. However, it appears that the loss of a spleen in no way affects a person's life or ability to work. (See Para 2 Page 10). In that case Silke J. awarded $30,000 as the proper award for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. Mr Chow also referred me to Para 7-812 of Kemp & Kemp where £2750 was awarded for the loss of a kidney in the United Kingdom in 1974. Clearly, the appropriate standard of compensation is to be found in Hong Kong decisions - Lee Ting-lam v Leung Kam-ming. Allowing for the fall in the value of money since the decision in Man Chuen v Cheng Ka Kui, Chow Keung Keong v Cheung Ka Kui (supra) I award $40,000 under this head.

Special Damages

(a) Loss of earnings

                The Plaintiff was off work for 118 days. I accept his evidence that his daily income was $118.50. His loss of earnings therefore are $118.50 x 118 = x13,983.00 and I award this sum.

(b) Travelling expenses

                I accept the Plaintiff's evidence. His loss therefore is: -

Weekly trips from 5.6.81 to 1.10.81 at $14 per round trip

210.00

Fortnightly trips from 1.10.81 to 31.12.81 at $14 per round trip

98.00

Monthly trips from January 1982 to April 1982 at $14 per round trip

    56.00

$364.00

=====

(c) Loss of umbrella and clothing

I accept this claim and award $45.00.

Summary of Award:-

General Damages

Special Damages

$40,000.00

(a)     Loss of earnings

13,983.00

(b)    Travelling expenses

364.00

(c) Loss of clothes and  umbrella

45,00

   14,392.00

$54,392.00

======

7. There will be interest on the general damages at the rate of 14% p.a. from the date of the service of the writ and on the special damages at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of the accident.

8. There will be costs to the Plaintiff in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations with a certificate for counsel.

(J. W. Hansen)

Master

Representation:

Mr B. Chow instructed by Hastings & Co for the Plaintiff. Defendant absent.