Tsoi Muk Yam v. Chan Yun Kwong and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 567/1983 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 12 September 1983.
1. On 22nd February 1980 Mme Ling Yan Jing was standing on the pavement of a private road leading from Kennedy Road to Grandview Tower, Happy Valley when she was knocked down and killed by the 2nd defendant's goods vehicle driven by the 1st defendant.
|
HCA000567/1983 1983 No. 567 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT ___________ BETWEEN
_________ Coram: Master Betts in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 15th August 1983 Date of Judgment: 12 September 1983 _________________________ ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES _________________________ 1. On 22nd February 1980 Mme Ling Yan Jing was standing on the pavement of a private road leading from Kennedy Road to Grandview Tower, Happy Valley when she was knocked down and killed by the 2nd defendant's goods vehicle driven by the 1st defendant. 2. Letters of Administration of her estate were granted to her daughter, the plaintiff, in November 1982 and the Writ herein issued in January this year. No defence was filed and interlocutory judgment was entered in March. 3. The claim is brought first under the Fatal Accidents Ordinance on behalf of the plaintiff as the only dependant. Secondly the claim is brought under the Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance for the estate of the deceased where, again, the plaintiff is the sole beneficiary. 4. My assessment under the latter is, unusually, the smaller and the two assessments are separate. 5. At the time of her death Mme Ling was aged 63 and employed as a household amah. She had been living in the home of the same employer for 19 years, was provided with full board, $950 a month, double pay and lycee at Lunar New Year and material for clothing twice a year. On the evidence of her employer I am satisfied that, the lycee amounted to about $1,000 annually and the clothing materials were worth about $300. On top of her keep and clothing, therefore, her annual earnings amounted to $950 x 13 + 1000 = $13,350; or an average of $1,112.50 a month. I was told that she was about to receive a substantial increased in wages, but the evidence showed that previous increases had always been modest and I am satisfied future increases would have continued barely to have kept pace with inflation. Her employer variously estimated that her salary today would have been between $1,800 and $1,900 or, later in his evidence, between $1,500 and $1,600. From previous increments I put the figure at $1,250. 6. Mme Ling was in good health, her employer told me the question of her retirement simply did not arise and, unlike the Hong Kong amahs of legend, she had not accumulated a fortune. I have no doubt she would have gone on working at least into her seventies and apply a multiplier of 6. 7. Although she had no fortune, Mme Ling did accumulate some capital. By the time of her death it had all gone in somewhat unusual circumstances. Her daughter, the plaintiff, managed to come legally from Mainland China to Hong Kong where, with husband and child, she set up home. I understand Mme Ling had been instrumental in bringing her here and used all her savings in setting up and furnishing a flat for the new family. Furthermore both the plaintiff and her husband, being newcomers, were earning extremely modest wages so Mme Ling was contributing practically the whole of her wages to her daughter; keeping only about $250 a month for her own modest needs. 8. I think she would have continued to do so for the forseeable future, although I would expect any increases she received would have been retained by her and the contribution to the plaintiff would have remained constant. 9. On this basis I assess the dependency of the plaintiff at $1,000 per month as a constant figure both pre-trial and in the future. 10. Having now arrived at both multiplicands and the multiplier I will make assessments under each head of claim. 1. To the plaintiff under LARCO
2. To the plaintiff under FAO 11. I accept the dependency of the plaintiff. I find the multiplicand to be $1,000 per month at the date of death and would have remained constant. I have applied a multiplier of six, or 72 months. Of that period 42 months have passed and 30 are to come. 12. I accordingly assess pre-trial loss as $1,000 x 42 = $42, 000 and post trial loss as $1,000 x 30 = $30,000. 13. There will be interest on the special damages and pre-trial loss at the rate of 5.5% per annum from the date of the accident until today and on the lost years at the rate of 2% per annum from the date of the writ until today. There will be no interest in respect of the assessment of post trial loss. The defendant will also pay the plaintiff's costs. 14. Dated 12 September 1983.
Representation: R. Tang, Esq. of Messrs Au & Wong for the Plaintiff Both defendants present but unrepresented Miss G. McFarlane with watching Brief for the Official Receiver |