Cheung Tze Ming v. Chan Kwok Keung and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCA 5173/1980 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 17 May 1982.

1. On the 16th August 1978 the Plaintiff was walking along the pavement in Yu Chau Street when he was hit by a taxi driven by the 1st Defendant and owned by the 2nd Defendant. The taxi mounted the pavement because it had been in collision with a private car owned and driven by the 3rd Defendant.

Case No.HCA 5173/1980
Court
High Court CFI
Date17 May 1982
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA005173/1980

1981 No. 5173

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

___________

BETWEEN

CHEUNG TZE MING Plaintiff

AND

CHAN KWOK KEUNG 1st Defendant
YU KIN YAN 2nd Defendant

NGAI YUEK HUNG

3rd Defendant

___________

Coram: Mr Registrar Julian Betts in Chambers

Date of Judgment: 17 May 1982

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

Assessment of Damages

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

1. On the 16th August 1978 the Plaintiff was walking along the pavement in Yu Chau Street when he was hit by a taxi driven by the 1st Defendant and owned by the 2nd Defendant. The taxi mounted the pavement because it had been in collision with a private car owned and driven by the 3rd Defendant.

2. At the time the Plaintiff was aged 38 and had been employed for some 20 years in a metalwork factory making small moulds for plastic flowers and the like. He was married with two small sons and earned $1,800.00 a month. He was admitted to hospital with multiple lacerations over the face and a posterior dislocation of his left hip. The dislocation was reduced under general anaesthetic and he was put in a plaster spica. After three weeks he was transferred to another hospital where, after two months, the cast was removed. In a further two weeks he was discharged. He returned to work on 17th April 1979. Although his work is done sitting down the Plaintiff suffers discomfort after a time and his output has fallen. This results in an average loss of earnings today of $400 a month.

3. Two physical consequences of the accident remain.

4. The nasal septum is deviated to the left diminishing the air passage by about 60% but leaving a patent air passage. Correspondingly the air passage in the right nostril has increased. This has a potential to lead to a blocking of the duct to the air sinuses. If this later leads to any real problem on operation could become necessary to replace the nasal septum. In his report Dr Wedderburn does not place the chances of such operation becoming necessary at more than 1%. There is no evidence that it has or will affect the Plaintiff's earning capacity.

5. Eight months after the accident the Plaintiff was medically examined and signs were found of lack of hip joint movement and one abnormality in that the upper end of the femur was slightly rotated clockwise. The prognosis at that time was that the restriction of hip joint would improve over the ensuing few months but that asteo-arthritis would slowly develop in the joint.

6. A further examination took place in March this year. No X-ray signs of asteo-arthritis were found but there were clinical signs of early changes. Dr Wedderburn estimated that the Plaintiff at present has a 1% disability which would become 3% by age 45/50 and 5% by age 55 and 7% by age 65. He might develop asteoarthritis with X-ray changes in two or three years. He should be capable at working at most jobs in a factory till the age of 55 and 60 but would then have to reduce his work load in comparison with a healthy individual of the same age.

7. I have no reason to doubt that evidence. I will now deal with the heads of damage.

l.

Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenities

Mr Cheung referred me to a number of helpful decisions in similar cases showing a range of awards from $20,000 to $55,000. He urged an award here of between $35,000 and $40,000.

The Plaintiff spent some months in hospital in a plaster cost, he still has some pain after sitting for any length of time and cannot comfortably walk for more than half an hour and then only slowly. The first signs of asteoarthritis are present and he will suffer increasing discomfort in the future. The possibility of future surgery to his nasal passage is remote but for a hip replacement slightly less so. My assessment under this hand is $60,000.

2. Special Damages

(a) Loss of Earning capacity

I accept the evidence that the actual loss of earnings are at the rate of $400 a month and likely to continue at about that level. I take that as the multiplicand.

The Plaintiff is now 42 years old and would normally expect to continue in his present, or similar, employment at least up to the age of 55. I agree with Mr Cheung that the proper multiplicand is 13. The assessment under this head is 3400 × 12 × 13 = $62,400.

(b) Loss of Earnings

The Plaintiff returned to work as soon as he reasonably could on the 17th April 1979, that is eight months after the accident. He lost his pages throughout that period at the rate of $1,800 a month making a total of $14,400. That sum is awarded.

Other items of special damage were undisputed and are as follows:-

(c) Loss of wristwatch $800

(d) Hospital expenses $5

(e) Travelling exp mses $25

(f) Special nourishment $1,000

Summary

8. There will be an award as follows:-

1. General Damages

$60,000.00

2. Special Damages

(a) Loss of earning capacity

$62,400.00
(b) Loss of earnings

$14,400.00
(c) Loss of wrietwatch

$800.00

(d) Hospital expenses

$5.00
(e) Travelling expenses

$25.00
(f) Special nourishment $1,000.00

$78,630.00

$138,630.00

=========

9. There will be interest an the general dameges at the rate of 17.5% per annum from the date of the service of the writ and at the rate of 8.75% per annum on the sum of $16,230.00 special damages at 2 (b), (c), (d), (e) & (f) supra from the date of the accident. There will, of course, be no interest on loss of earning capacity awarded under 2 (a) supra.

10. Costs to Plaintiff to be taxed under Legal Aid Regulations with a certificate for Counsel.

Dated this 17th day of May 1982.

(J. Betts)
Assistant Registrar
Supreme Court

Representation:

Mr P. Cheung instructed by Foo & Li for Plaintiff

3rd Defendant in person