Lai Wah Wai v. Castco Testing Centre Ltd.

1995, No.PI 422

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

PERSONAL INJURIES

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

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

Coram : Hon Mr Justice Cheung in Court

Dates of Hearing : 27, 28 and 29 February 1996, 1, 4 and 6 March 1996

Date of Handing Down Judgment : 14 March 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

The claim

1. The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant. The Defendant was engaged in the preparation of concrete mix samples in construction sites which were used for the purpose of testing. On 29th May 1992 the Plaintiff sustained injuries while he was engaged in his work. He now seeks damages against the Defendant for negligence.

How did the accident occur

2. The concrete mix that was delivered to the construction site was put into metal moulds and left to set. It usually took 16 to 24 hours for the concrete to set. After the concrete was set, the moulds would be removed, the concrete blocks would be numbered and put into a water tank for curling and later for testing. The Plaintiff's responsibility was to clean and prepare the moulds into which the concrete was poured. Having prepared the moulds, he used a big metal spoon to transfer the mixed concrete which was delivered to the work area and placed in a sink into the moulds. He stacked the moulds containing the said concrete in piles of four to six moulds, then starting at the top, he would remove the concrete blocks from the moulds. This involved removing the bolts on the moulds with two spanners, striking the moulds with a metal bar to loosen the concrete blocks and then placing the parts of the moulds on the ground. This method was used because of the limited space at the work area.

3. The workload was very heavy in the morning. Apart from making the new concrete blocks, the Plaintiff had to dismantle from the moulds the concrete blocks that were required for the testing. There were insufficient moulds and hence, moulds had to be removed in order to cater for the making of the new blocks.

4. On the morning of 29 May 1992, the Plaintiff was working on a batch of about 10 moulds with concrete blocks. In order to make the moulds available for the fresh concrete mix which was coming into the site, the Plaintiff was under pressure to work quickly. As he was lifting a mould and concrete block, he felt a sharp pain in the lumbar area of his back. He told his co-worker that he could not continue with the work and asked him to take over the job so that he could take a rest. The Plaintiff then did some paperwork and finished the tests. At about noon, the pain was becoming severe so he told his co-worker that he was going to hospital and asked him to inform his employer about his injury. He went to the Prince of Wales Hospital. Subsequent examination showed that there was a central and right side L5/S1 disc prolapse with compression of the right S1 nerve root.

Accident occurred while lifting moulds with concrete

5. I am satisfied that the injury was sustained by the Plaintiff in the course of his lifting the mould with the concrete block. The Plaintiff impressed me as an honest witness and I accept his account of the accident. Although during the course of the evidence there were times when he showed impatience to the questioning and he gave some rather blunt answers, this does not in any way affect my assessment of his credibility. His impatience was probably due to the back pain which he continues to suffer.

Defendant's challenge not accepted

6. It was suggested to the Plaintiff that he hurt his back when he was putting the concrete blocks into the water tank. A co-worker, Mr Cheng, was called by the Defendant to give evidence to the effect that the Plaintiff told him that he hurt his back when he was putting the concrete blocks into the tank. Mr Cheng took up employment with the Defendant about one month before the Plaintiff and he left the Defendant in January 1993. I am satisfied that Mr Cheng was mistaken as to what the Plaintiff had told him about the accident. The Defendant's solicitors only applied for a subpoena to be served on Mr Cheng on the first day of the trial and a witness statement was only taken from him on the second day. There were other matters in his witness statement that were clearly incorrect, for example, the weight of the moulds and the conversation with the Plaintiff regarding employees' compensation. In my view, Mr Cheng clearly did not have a valid recollection of the events that took place as long ago as May 1992.

7. The Defendant also argued that the Plaintiff was lifting concrete blocks instead of moulds at the time of the injury because according to the medical report of the Plaintiff's doctor, namely Dr John C.M. Wan, dated 3rd July 1994, Dr Wan stated that the Plaintiff had a sudden onset of pain in his back after lifting some heavy concrete blocks. Dr Wan said that he wrote this in accordance with what the Plaintiff told him.

8. The account of Dr Wan does not cast doubt on the Plaintiff's case. Dr Wan was after all concerned with the medical conditions of the Plaintiff rather than on details of how the accident occurred. It was not encumbered upon Dr Wan to make a detail enquiry as to how the demoulding operation was carried out. In any event, according to the Notice by Employers (Form 2) lodged by the Defendant on 16th June 1992 pursuant to the Employees Compensation Ordinance, it was stated that the Plaintiff twisted and hurt his back while lifting brick moulds. This is consistent with the account of the accident given by the Plaintiff. The Defendant must have made enquiries about how the accident occurred before it submitted the statutory form to the Labour Department. Furthermore, another witness of the Defendant, namely Mr Yip, did not challenge the evidence of the Plaintiff that after the accident he, namely, Mr Yip, had asked him whether he was injured while he was stacking up the moulds. All these supported the Plaintiff's claim that he was lifting the moulds with concrete at the time of the accident.

What moulds were used at the time of the accident

9. Three moulds were produced as exhibits at the trial. Mould No.1 was 30 lbs (14 kg) or 28 lbs (13 kg). The variation was due to the weight of the base plate. The No.2 mould was 35.5 lbs (16 kg), the No.3 mould was 49 lbs (22 kg). The overall dimensions of the moulds were 24 cm (10") x 24 cm (10") x 15 cm (6"). The base plate was 32 cm2. The thickness of the base plate of the No.2 and No.3 moulds is different. The weight of the concrete block was 8 kg (17.6 lbs). The Plaintiff said that all three moulds were used at the time of the accident.

10. The Defendant's case is that the No.3 mould was only ordered and used after the accident had occurred. The new type was used in order to meet the new building standards. Documents were produced by the Defendant to establish the time of the purchase of the No.3 mould. I am satisfied that the Plaintiff was mistaken as to the use of the No.3 mould at the time of the accident. I am satisfied that the mistake was caused by the similar configuration of the No.2 and No.3 moulds. I find that the No.1 and No.2 moulds were used at the time of the accident.

Duty of care

11. The standard of an employer's duty towards his employee is to see that reasonable care is taken; the scope of that duty extends to the provision of safe fellow employees, safe equipment, safe place of work and access to it and a safe system of work. (Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co. Ltd. v. English [1938] AC 57.) A system of work is the term used to describe :

(1) the organisation of the work;

(2) the way in which it is intended the work shall be carried out;

(3) the giving of adequate instructions (especially to inexperienced workers);

(4) the sequence of events;

(5) the taking of precautions for the safety of the workers and at what stages;

(6) the number of such persons required to do the job;

(7) the part to be taken by each of the various persons employed; and

(8) the moment at which they shall perform their respective tasks.

(Para.10-59 Charlesworth & Percey on Negligence, 8th ed.)

Mr Evans

12. Mr Evans is an expert called by the Plaintiff. He was a lecturer in the Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, University of Hong Kong. His main research area is in Ergonomics and Biomechanics. Ergonomics is concerned with the design of "man-machine-systems" with the aim of designing work systems which are safe, healthy and efficient. Biomechanics is the analysis of the mechanical principles of the human body.

13. Mr Evans reviewed the international recommendations on lifting limits by reference to the guidelines issued by the Eastman Kodak Company 1986; Snook and Ciriello (1991); the U.K. Ministry of Defence; the European Coal and Steel Community, 1991 and the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 1981. The recommendations suggested that the safe limit for lifting forces is around 12 kg for general application, around 23-30 kg for well trained individuals lifting in well designed lifting circumstances and 50-55 kg as the absolute maximum for well trained, specially selected individuals lifting in ideal circumstances. The ideal circumstances are : a small compact load held close to, and in front of the body, a good handgrip on the load, with the person in an erect posture.

The safe limit in this case

14. Mr Evans was asked to give an opinion as to the safe limit of the load in this case. He said that in order to establish the limit for the present case, it must be done by reference to the special circumstances of the case, which may differ from those upon which the limits presented by the various guidelines are based. The factors he had considered in determining a safe limit for the present work included :

(1) worker characteristics, e.g. age, physical size, weight, training and experience.

(2) load characteristics : size, location of centre of mass, ease of grasping.

(3) task characteristics : workplace arrangement, frequency of lifting.

(4) work practices characteristics : how the work procedures were established and implemented and the relationship of the worker to those in authority.

At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff was 29 years old, his height was 5'5" (164 cm), his weight was 162 lbs (74 kg). Mr Evans commented that the Plaintiff is shorter but heavier than the average Cantonese male. However, he is much shorter and slightly lighter than the average American male (the average American male stature is 175.5 cm, with a weight of 78.4 kg). The Plaintiff had not received any training in manual handling. It is the Plaintiff's case that the posture he adopted when lifting the moulds from the ground level involved bending his back forward, with the hands at the start of the lift only 15 cm from the ground and the centre of mass of the load at at least 30 cm away from the feet. This creates a high torque and puts a high compression force on the spinal discs. The Plaintiff also claimed (whose evidence I accept) that he would lift between 10 to 28 moulds during a normal shift. Mr Evans stated that, considering these factors, the safe limit for the present case would be about 20 kg (44 lbs).

The moulds and concrete exceeded the safety limit

15. The No.1 and No.2 moulds with concrete will weigh at least 21 kg to 24 kg. This would exceed the safety limit suggested by Mr Evans.

16. Mr Kerr referred to a number of English cases in which the courts considered the appropriate safety limit for a worker to carry. These cases are set out in Bingham on the Modern Cases of Negligence at pp.355 to 358. There are more recent cases such as Bailey v. Rolls Royce (1971) Limited [1984] ICR 688 and Holmes v. Tees & Hartlepool Port Authority [1993] CLY para.2020. These cases referred to weights of about 100 lbs to 200 lbs and more. As Mr Evans observed, in deciding what is the safe limit, various factors must be considered. Among those must be the stature of the Plaintiff and the configuration of the object in question. Details were not provided in Bingham about those cases. Furthermore, the two recent cases were in respect of workers engaged in manual work. Bailey is a case of a paint sprayer and Holmes is a stevedore. The cases relied on by Mr Kerr do not in any way cast doubt on the assessment of the safe limit of loads by Mr Evans.

The lifting posture

17. It is the Defendant's case that one of its workers, Mr Cheng had demonstrated how the moulds should be lifted. The posture was that, instead of bending down to pick up the mould, the worker would squat down with one knee slightly higher than the other and the back pointed slightly to the front and pick up the load from the ground.

18. Mr Evans' comment was that if the worker had used this posture, it would in fact have increased the load because the distance between the feet and the hands was greater than the value he had used in his calculations and therefore the safe limit is likely to be lower than his calculated limits.

19. While Mr Evans accepted that the posture used by Mr Cheng in lifting was superior to the posture of the Plaintiff, he disagreed that the method adopted by Mr Cheng would pose little risk in the lifting when the load in question was 20 kg. Mr Evans was of the view that for a load of more than 20 kg in this particular configuration with the size and bulk and the position of the hands at the start of the lifting, it would be difficult to envisage any circumstances in which a worker can safely lift such a load. He said that if one could have a bigger load which one could get closer to the body or the hands could be in a higher position, then of course the acceptable level would be higher. He gave the example of lifting a suitcase of 30 kg. One could keep it much closer to the body at the side and the distance between the load and the body was reduced.

Was the squatting posture demonstrated to the Plaintiff ?

20. Mr Kerr asked me to accept that Mr Cheng had demonstrated the squatting posture to the Plaintiff. He drew my attention to the fact that the Plaintiff initially denied that anyone had demonstrated to him how to lift the moulds but subsequently agreed in cross-examination that Mr Cheng had demonstrated to him. The Plaintiff maintained that the posture used by Mr Cheng was the same as the one he had used when lifting the moulds. Mr Kerr argued that if Mr Cheng had taken the trouble of demonstrating to the Plaintiff, then he must have demonstrated the correct posture to the Plaintiff.

21. Mr Evans has already illustrated, whose evidence I accept, that the posture used by Mr Cheng would still be unsafe to lift a load of more than 20 kg. I do not accept that Mr Cheng had in 1992 demonstrated the squatting posture to the Plaintiff. I find that the posture Mr Cheng used was the one used by the Plaintiff. Mr Cheng said that he demonstrated to the new workers the posture because otherwise they would hurt their back. In my view, Mr Cheng was mistaken on this issue. It is the Defendant's case that until the injury was sustained by the Plaintiff, it did not have any other worker hurting his back in the lifting operation. In fact, it is the Defendant's case that it is totally unnecessary to lift the moulds because there was enough space to work on the ground. It is also its case that it is harmful to stack up the moulds with the concrete. With this background, the question of the safe posture of lifting the moulds simply did not arise when the Plaintiff took up his employment.

The work area

22. At the Ma On Shan construction site, the work area for the Plaintiff and his colleagues consisted of a covered space between two containers, one of which was used as an office, the other of which was used for storage. The covered space was 20' long and about 9' wide. I accept the Plaintiff's evidence that the useable length was less than 20' as there was an area across the far end of the container where materials were stored. There was a passageway running along the remainder of the length of the covered area of about 3' wide. The areas on both sides of the passageway, each about 3' wide were used for the storage of moulds. I accept the Plaintiff's evidence that because of the number of moulds in use at any time, the area where he worked was congested. I do not accept the evidence of the Defendant's witnesses on the working area. Mr Lee, the director of the Defendant, obviously had no idea of the actual site conditions at the time of the accident. Mr Yip, the site foreman, had to divide his time between the various work sites and his evidence that it was not necessary for the workers to lift the moulds and that the moulds could be worked on the ground was simply given without regard to the actual site condition. Mr Cheng's recollection of the site condition was vague as well.

Stacking of moulds with concrete

23. It is the evidence of Mr Lee and Mr Yip that it was harmful to stack up the moulds with the concrete inside because the surface of the mould would be scratched and also the concrete may not have fully set. This is contrary to the evidence of the expert, Mr Law called by the Defendant. I find that the Defendant had not prohibited the workers from stacking up the moulds with the concrete. Certainly there was no provision against stacking of moulds with concrete in the instruction manuals provided to the workers. There was only the prohibition against the staking of the concrete blocks. I do not find that there was any verbal prohibition. Bearing in mind that it was the Defendant's case that there was sufficient space on the ground for the workers to work on the moulds, the question of stacking up moulds would simply not occur to the Defendant at that time. The Defendant had also not make out a case that the Housing Authority would reject concrete blocks in the moulds which were stacked up.

Lack of supervision

24. I reject the Defendant's contention that the workload of the Plaintiff was light at that time. I accept the Plaintiff's evidence that his daily work would require him during the morning to make new concrete blocks and also to remove the concrete blocks from the moulds because there were insufficient moulds available to the workers at that time. The lifting and the stacking of moulds with concrete were the prevalent practice at the site. Mr Cheng who was supposed to supervise the Plaintiff must have seen such steps being taken during the two months' employment of the Plaintiff and he had allowed the procedure to continue. The management of the Defendant had simply not supervised the operation of the workers.

Negligence established

25. I find that negligence is established against the Defendant. The moulds provided by the Defendant were simply too heavy to be lifted up by the Plaintiff. It had not prohibited the workers from lifting the moulds with the concrete. It had not ensured that the workers would not lift the moulds with the concrete. It had not instructed the workers the safe posture in the lifting of the moulds.

Work platform

26. Mr Evans suggested that a working platform should be installed at the construction site so that the workers did not have to bend their backs in working on the moulds. Mr Lee and Mr Yip both claimed that they have never seen such working platforms in construction sites in Hong Kong. They claimed that because the wet concrete required pounding, it would be unsafe to carry out such an exercise on the working platform. Whether such a working platform is required or not would depend on the circumstances of the case. If the area in which the workers carried out the work was large enough for them to work on the ground, then of course there is no need to use the platform because they did not have to lift the moulds. However, if, because of the congested condition, the workers were required to lift up the moulds with concrete and stack them up, then surely a working platform was necessary.

27. In the present case, as I have already found that the Plaintiff had established his claim of negligence against the Defendant, it is not necessary for me to further express an opinion that the absence of the working platform would constitute another ground of negligence on the part of the Defendant. There is no question of contributory negligence on the part of the Plaintiff and I find that the Defendant is fully liable to the Plaintiff.

Damages

Pain, suffering and loss of amenities

28. The Plaintiff sustained central and right side L5/S1 disc prolapse with compression of the right S1 nerve root. Initially he received treatment with physiotherapy and analgesic for three months, but he continued to suffer low back pain with the pain radiating down to his left leg. The x-ray showed decreased lumbar lodosis. The symptoms then became static and shifted to his right side. A operation was eventually performed on 2nd February 1993, namely the right side feneration and dissectomy of the L5/S1 level. A bulging disc was found and the dissectomy was done and the nerve root was free.

29. After the operation he continued to have low back pain and bilateral lower limbs numbness. MR1 scan on 1st September 1993 revealed that there was some fibrosis over the operated site and the right S1 nerve root was slightly swollen but there was no compression. The Plaintiff was admitted into hospital again and manipulation under general anaesthesia was performed on 10th December 1993. The manipulation gave him some relief for about one month. Subsequently, epidural injections of steroid were given.

30. He was hospitalised for 20 days. He received 96 sessions of out-patient and physiotherapy treatment. He was given sick leave from 29th May 1992 to 15th June 1994. He continued to see Professor C.P. Leung every eight weeks and would sometimes have walk-in consultations if his pain is too severe. He is still taking pain-killing medication two to three times a day but the prescription has to be changed from time to time in order to maintain the effectiveness of such medication. He was advised to swim under the supervision of a physiotherapist but he could not find the time to do so because of his work. The prospect of further improvement of his injuries is minimal.

31. His present disabilities are that he suffered diminished sensitivity at the web space between the first and second toes, decreased left and right lateral flexion by 15o each; decreased extension by 10o; decreased flexion by 25o; decreased straight left and right leg elevation by 20o and 10o respectively; there are decreased extension and flexion of the hips by 5o and 35o.

32. He resumed his employment on 8th June 1994. He now suffers backache on sitting, standing and walking for longer than 30 minutes. He is unable to lift heavy objects, not even his four year old son. His lower back pain extends to both legs, aggravated by walking; he can no longer play football or run during weekends. There is a slight increase in the risk of osteoarthritis of the lumbar spine. He was assessed to have a loss of earning capacity of 30% on the basis that he could not return to his pre-accident employment or jobs that would require him to carry heavy weight. The Defendant's medical expert assessed the loss of earning capacity at 28%. The Plaintiff clearly showed that he was in pain during the course of his evidence. He could not maintain a posture for a long period of time, he had to change from a sitting position to a standing position and vice-versa at intervals. I accept that these are genuine indications that he is still experiencing problems with his back.

33. Miss Wong, Counsel for the Plaintiff, submitted that the injuries fall within the serious injuries as categorised in Lee Ting Lam v. Leung Kam Ming [1980] HKLR 657. This category includes injuries which give a disability marring general activities and enjoyment of life but allows reasonable mobility to the victim, e.g. a loss of a limb replaced by a satisfactory artificial device or bad fractures leading to recurrent pain. In Chun Yat Nam v. A.G. (Civil Appeal No.92 of 1994, judgment dated 23rd December 1994) the level of damages for this category was raised to $250,000 to $335,000 to take into account inflation. In Chan Pui Ki v. Leung On & Kowloon Mortor Bus Co. (1933) Ltd. (HCA No.A2006 of 1992, judgment 30th October 1995), I stated that based on price inflation, the level of damages in Chun Yat Nam should be raised by about 7.5%. The range will be from $270,000 to $360,000. I also suggested that the level of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities should be increased by 50% to bring the level of awards in Hong Kong into line with the U.K. awards.

34. In Lau Wing Shing v. Chung Fat Mechanical Works Co. (HCA No. A109 of 1986, judgment 1st April 1987) the Plaintiff had two operations to correct a prolapsed disc. He had a fairly long period of convalescence; he can sit for about 10 minutes and then he has to stand; he can stand for about half an hour then he has to change his posture; he cannot carry more than 30 lbs of weight and has been assessed by medical opinion as suffering from 15% loss of earning capacity. Liu J, as he then was, assessed his disability to fall near the bottom of the serious injuries and awarded him $120,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenities. In Lee Hon Chuen v. Fung Kin Sang & Ors. (Action No.A1105 of 1989, judgment 13th June 1991), the Plaintiff suffered a burst compression fracture of the first lumbar vertebra and a depressed fracture of the oscalcis in the right heel. He spent 20 days in hospital and received out-patient treatment and physiotherapy for about three and a half months. Master Woolley awarded damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities in the sum of $150,000. Given the rate of inflation, Miss Wong submitted that this award is at around $350,000 today.

35. Mr Kerr does not accept that the injuries of the Plaintiff come within the category of serious injuries. While he accepted my approach in Chan Pui Ki, he submitted that if I should treat the present injuries of the Plaintiff as falling within the serious injuries category, then I should take into account that the current awards for serious injuries are already higher than the level of awards in U.K. for similar injuries. In relation to back injuries, he referred me to the guidelines issued by the English Judicial Studies Board in which it was stated that, subject to injuries involving paralysis (e.g. quadriplegia), relatively few back injuries commands awards above ￡20,000. Those that do, depend upon special features.

36. As Miss Wong had not addressed me on this matter, I am not prepared to go into the issue as to whether the level of damage in the serious injuries category in Hong Kong is already higher than the comparable U.K. awards. Considering the injuries of the Plaintiff, I find the appropriate award in this case to be $300,000. The interest on PSLA would be 3% from the date of the writ to date, i.e. 17 months which equals to $12,750.

Loss of earnings

37. The Plaintiff was out of work from 29 May 1992 to 8 June 1994 during which time he was granted sick leave by the doctors. The Defendant does not dispute that the Plaintiff is entitled to loss of past earnings. The only issue is the salary that he is entitled to receive. According to Form 2, the Plaintiff was earning on average $6,300 per month. This consisted of $4,200 basic salary plus $1,200 per month for regular overtime. In addition, it was stated in Form 2 that the Plaintiff received $600 as being constant monthly allowance plus $12 as daily free food. According to p.60 of the Bundle, in May 1994, the Plaintiff was paid salary of $6,606.38. The accident occurred on the 29th May. Had the Plaintiff completed his work at the end of the month, his salary for that month would be $7,055. In 1994 the basic salary of the workers was increased to $5,600. I agree with Miss Wong's submission that the Plaintiff's earning would have risen with inflation. But for the accident, he would now have been earning about $9,300 per month. The median salary is therefore $8,150 per month. The award under this head is $8,150 x 24.25 months = $197,637.50.

Future loss of earnings/loss of earning capacity

38. After the Plaintiff resumed work, he worked as a site clerk for Ready Mix Concrete Limited from 8th June 1994 to 15th October 1994 and earned a total sum of $44,694. He was dismissed. He said that he could not cope with the long hours of sitting. Before his dismissal, he was already notified by his employer that he would be dismissed. He looked for alternative employment and beginning from 17th October 1994, he was employed by Bambi (Hong Kong) Limited as a production clerk. His current salary with Bambi was not less than the one he earned during his employment with the Defendant. However, it is clear that he did suffer a handicap in the labour market. He has to attend treatment in hospital and he could only take transport with seats available for him to sit, this resulted in him arriving at work late. Deductions were made from his salary for absence from work and late attendance. Furthermore, his work requires him to travel to China which he is reluctant to undertake and his company has already relocated part of the business activities to China. His employer is unhappy with his sick leave and late attendance. He had already been dismissed from one job; his current job is at a decreased salary from the last one. His contract is coming up for renewal this month but the Plaintiff finds it difficult to say whether his contract would be renewed or not.

39. In Kwok Hang Kei v. Quon Hing Concrete Co. Ltd. HCA No.A6409 of 1988, a 26 year old former construction site worker suffered 52% permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. At the time of assessment he was working as a site clerk. It was accepted that had he not been injured, he should have been earning more by that time. Apart from awarding him a sum for future loss of earnings, a further sum of $200,000 was awarded to him for loss of earning capacity. It was perceived that there was a very real risk that the plaintiff's employment would not continue indefinitely and that he would be unlikely to find alternative employment in a clerical capacity in the future where he would be paid his current earnings.

40. Mr Kerr submitted that in the present case there is no evidence to suggest that the Plaintiff would have any difficulty in finding an alternative job. In my view, the basis for awarding a sum for loss of earning capacity is by reason of the injured person's handicap in the labour market. It is obvious that the Plaintiff would suffer such an handicap because of his physical impairment even though he is engaged in clerical work. I am satisfied that an award for loss of earning capacity should be made. Doing the best I can in the light of the evidence that were presented to me, I agree that the sum of $200,000 is the appropriate figure for this award.

Medical and travelling expenses

41. A sum of $16,233 is claimed by the Plaintiff. Although Mr Kerr stated that $15,000 is accepted, the Defendant did not seriously dispute the claim under this head. I would therefore allow the amount of $16,233.

Interest

42. The interest on the pre-trial special damage at 6% per annum from the date of the accident to date (about 45 months) is $48,120.86.

Summary

43. The amount awarded under this claim is as follows :

The award under the Employees Compensation was made on 25th January 1995. This included interest on the compensation calculated up to 25th January 1995.

Judgment

44. There will be judgment on the sum of $569,069.16 with interest at judgment rate from the date of judgment to payment. Costs nisi of the action shall be to the Plaintiff.

Representation:

Miss Liza Wong, inst'd by M/s Ng & Co., for the Plaintiff

Mr John Kerr, inst'd by M/s W.K. To & Co., for the Defendant