Wong Sau Wah and Others v. Leung Kam Cheuk and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 2174/1981 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 22 March 1982.
1. The plaintiffs (the wife and son of the deceased) are the administrators of the estate of the deceased who died intestate on the 4th December 1978. Letters of administration were granted to the plaintiffs on the 13th March 1981. The deceased died as a result of injuries that he received in a road traffic accident that occurred on the 2nd December 1978 when he was knocked down by a motor cycle driven by the 1st defendant and owned by the 2nd defendant as he was crossing Causeway Road. At the t
|
HCA002174/1981 Headnote Assessment of damages under the Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance Cap 23.
BETWEEN
--------- Coram: Jones, J. Date of Judgment: 22 March 1982 ___________ JUDGMENT ___________ 1. The plaintiffs (the wife and son of the deceased) are the administrators of the estate of the deceased who died intestate on the 4th December 1978. Letters of administration were granted to the plaintiffs on the 13th March 1981. The deceased died as a result of injuries that he received in a road traffic accident that occurred on the 2nd December 1978 when he was knocked down by a motor cycle driven by the 1st defendant and owned by the 2nd defendant as he was crossing Causeway Road. At the time of his death the deceased was aged 58. 2. The plaintiffs claim damages on behalf of the estate of the deceased under the Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance (Cap. 23) ("LARCO") and on behalf of the dependants under the Fatal Accidents Ordinance (Cap. 22) ("FAO"). The defendants have accented liability subject to a reduction of 25% for the deceased's contributory negligence. Accordingly it is only necessary for me to assess the quantum of damages. 3. At the time of his death the deceased was employed in a factory as a broker for the sale of metal products. Mr. Kwong Chi Shing, the deceased's employer, testified that at the time of the accident he paid the deceased a salary of $1,000 per month plus commission of approximately the same amount. It was also claimed that the deceased did part time work on his own account selling jade. Although it was indicated that the income from this source was about $3,000 to $4,000 per month this evidence was quite clearly a guess. 4. The 1st plaintiff testified that she received a sum of about $3,000 per month from the deceased at the time of his death which covered the living expenses of the family and her own spending money. She said that the deceased spent between $2,000 to $3,000 per month on his own living expenses. 5. The deceased's daughter, Madam Chui Fung May, gave evidence that she received from the deceased $600 each month towards the rent of her flat where the family lived and a further $300 for outgoings. The deceased's son, Chui Hing Lok said he received $360 per month from the deceased for school fees and pocket money. 6. Claims were also made on behalf of two sons, Chui Hing Sung and Chui Hing Kam that they were each partially dependent to the extent of $100 per month. These sums were paid to them by the 1st plaintiff from the monies she received from the deceased. 7. The figures set out in the Statement of Claim for the deceased's earnings, monies retained for his own use and monies paid to the 1st plaintiff were amended at the hearing from $2,200 to $6,000, $700 to $3,000 and $600 to $1,500. Whilst it was not contended that there was anything dishonest about the amendments no explanation was given as to why these amounts were not incorporated when the writ was issued on the 3rd April 1981. I am of the opinion that these figures were grossly inflated with no justification. 8. The evidence with regard to the deceased's income and expenditure was vague and unsatisfactory. It was submitted by Mr. Sujanani that the deceased was a man of means but there was no evidence to support this contention. In fact the 1st plaintiff had to borrow money for the funeral from her daughter. 9. Having regard to the inadequate evidence available I must make the best estimate that I can. I accept that the deceased's income from the metal factory amounted to $2,000 per month. Upon the balance of probabilities I accept that the deceased received income as a jade broker which I assess at $1,000 per month. This will make a total income of $3,000 per month. That a sum of $500 would be a reasonable sum to deduct for his living expenses leaving the balance payable to the 1st plaintiff. The deceased was in good health. Taking into account his age I consider that the appropriate multiplier should be 7. This will result in a figure of $210,000 for the award of damages for the lost years based on the authority of Gammell v. Wilson(1). 10. Damages for loss of expectation of life will be allowed at the conventional sum of $15,000, see Yeung Wing v. V.S.L. Engineers(Hong Kong) & Others(2). 11. Funeral expenses were claimed in the sum of $13,000. Of this amount $7,522 has been agreed. The balance relates to the cost of funeral ceremonies for which no receipts were produced. I do not consider that the defendants should be saddled with these extra sums which I find are unreasonable. They are therefore disallowed. The award under LARCO will extinguish the claim under FAO. All the damages recovered by the estate will go to the plaintiffs. I do not therefore propose to make an award under FAO. 12. The total damages reduced by 25% will be as follows:-
13. There will be judgment for the plaintiffs for the sum of $174,390 and costs. Plaintiffs' costs will also be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid (Scale of Fees) Regulations. 14. Interest will be awarded as follows:-
(1) (1981) 2 W.L.R. 248 (2) (1981) H.K.L.R. 130 Representation: Mr. R.K. Sujanani (D.L.A.) for Plaintiffs. Mr. Bunting (H.A. Hoosenally & Co.) for Defendants. |