Wong Yiu Tsang v. Yeung Chung Kit and Another

HCA004281/1983

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

___________

BETWEEN

Coram: Master Hansen in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 24 October 1983

___________________________

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

___________________________

1. On the 17th August 1981 the Plaintiff, a retired schoolteacher aged 62, was injured in a traffic accident. She suffered a fracture of the superior and inferior public rami of the right pelvis.

2. She was in hospital until the 9th October 1981. She was examined by Dr Wedderburn. In essence, his report states that there was no permanent impairment and that, no permanent impairment and that, given her age, it would have been reasonable for the Plaintiff to have been off work for 6 months.

Pain Suffering and Loss of Amenities

3. I was referred to one similar case:-

4. Wong Mun-na v Chow Kwok-keung V.D. Court No. 320/79 (Martin & Rhodes Pg. 181). In that case Hooper D.J. (as he then was) awarded $6,000. Mr McCormick submitted, that allowing for the fall in the value of money, an appropriate figure to award Mr Wong was $10,000. This figure was accepted by Mr Ho and accordingly I award $10,000.

Loss of Earnings

5. The Plaintiff's evidence was that she supplemented her pension from two sources. One was part time function where she could earn around $1,000 p.m. The alternative to that was caring for the flat of a friend, Mr Tang, in Happy Valley. She claimed she earned $2,000 p.m. from this source. Further, without objection, a certificate from Mr Tang was adduced pursuant to 0.38 R.S.C. This confirmed that but for the traffic accident the Plaintiff would have been employed by Mr Tang in August 1981 to care for the flat. Mr Ho submitted that the Plaintiff was entitled to loss of tuition fees at $1,000 p.m. but not for the alternative amount of $2,000 p.m. from Mr Tang. That is a submission I do not understand Mr Tang's certificate was unchallenged. I accept that, but for the accident, the Plaintiff would have been employed by Mr Tang for 6 months at $2,000 p.m. Accordingly, I award $12,000.

Hospital Fees

6. I award $300 as claimed.

Travelling Expenses of Plaintiff's Family

7. I award $540 as claimed for the travelling expenses of the Plaintiff's family in visiting her in hospital.

Travelling Expenses of Plaintiff Attending Outpatients

8. I award $90 as claimed.

Bonesetter

9. I award $400 as claimed.

Crutches

10. I award hire charges of $20 as claimed.

Nourishing Food

11. The Plaintiff claimed $7,200 which is for too high and was not substantiated in any way. I am satisfied the Plaintiff took nourishing food and that to do so was reasonable. The accepted award has been $10 per day. (To Ki v Chan Kit Lam 2224/1980). As was pointed out by Master Betts in Mok Yun Tai by his next Friend and father Mak Kan Cheung v Kwong Kwok Tai 1427/1983, no allowance has been made for inflation since 1980. Accordingly, he allowed $15 per day. With this I agree. In this case I think 6 months to be a reasonable period and accordingly award $2,670.

Summary

12. There will be interest on general damages at the rate of 2% p.a. from the date of the issue of the writ and on special damages at the rate of 5.50% p.a. from the date of the accident to today.

13. There will be an order for payment of the Plaintiff's costs by the defendant and for the Plaintiff's own costs to be taxed under Legal Aid Regulations.

Dated this 27th day of October 1983.

Representation:

Mr McCormick of Legal Aid Department for Plaintiff

Mr B.K. Ho instructed by K.Y. Woo & Co for Defendant