Lee Man Leung v. Choi Chun Fung and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 701/1976 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. On the 19th May, 1973 at about 11.30 a.m. the Plaintiff was a passenger in a goods vehicle No. AS6443 owned by the 1st Defendant and driven by the 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff was seated on top of approximately 7 tons of goods loaded on the rear tray of the vehicle.
|
HCA000701/1976
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT -----------------
----------------- Coram: Mr. Registrar O'Dea in Chambers. Date of Judgment: 26th April 1976. Mr. C.A. White of the Legal Aid Dept. appeared for the Plaintiff. No appearance entered by either Defendant. ----------------- DECISION ----------------- 1. On the 19th May, 1973 at about 11.30 a.m. the Plaintiff was a passenger in a goods vehicle No. AS6443 owned by the 1st Defendant and driven by the 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff was seated on top of approximately 7 tons of goods loaded on the rear tray of the vehicle. 2. The vehicle was being driven in a southerly direction along Pokfulam Road and as it passed through the intersection with Victoria Road the goods on the rear tray section fell causing the Plaintiff to fall to the roadway as a result of which he received injuries. 3. No appearance was entered by either defendant and interlocutory judgment was entered against the 1st Defendant on the 23rd November, 1976 and against the 2nd Defendant on the 3rd February, 1977 for damages to be assessed. 4. The Plaintiff was employed as a labourer at the time of his accident and he had been engaged in this occupation since his arrival in Hong Kong 30 years ago. 5. He was rendered unconscious for a short time after the accident and was admitted to Queen Elizabeth Hospital where he remained for 15 days. He had lacerations of the scalp which were sutured and a fractured skull. He encountered bleeding from the right ear for a month after the accident. He also sustained a partial right sided facial paralysis and a 2 inch laceration under the chin. His dentures were also broken as a result of his fall. 6. The fracture to the skull in the region of the right ear had two effects:-
7. Apart from a comprehensive report prepared by Dr. Wedderburn there was little other medical evidence. 8. Apart from the lacerations which have now healed the Plaintiff's injuries appear to fall under two heads, namely, partial deafness to the right ear and damage to the facial nerve. 9. Dr. Wedderburn has assessed the loss of hearing to the right ear as being 70%. The hearing in the left ear is normal. This loss of hearing was not regarded as being sufficiently serious to impede the Plaintiff's ability to hear normal conversation in quiet surroundings but there would always be a tendency for the Plaintiff to favour his other ear and he may have some difficulty in hearing when he was in a noisy environment. 10. The effect of the damage to the facial nerve is mainly related to the right side of the Plaintiff's face. He cannot completely close or raise the right eyelid but this does not interfere with his vision. Because the eyelid does not completely close, he is prone to inflammation or infection of the eye. This condition can be treated with eyedrops. 11. Dr. Wedderburn considered that the injuries should not seriously impede the Plaintiff's earning ability although he concedes that there is some loss involved. 12. The permanent total disability resulting from the accident is assessed at 16%. Special Damages:
General Damages: 13. The degree of pain and suffering was considered by Dr. Wedderburn to be more in the nature of discomfort although the Plaintiff has told me he still suffers from some dizziness if he bends over. The partial paralysis to the face does result in a possible tendency for the Plaintiff to be afflicted with eye infections but the principal disadvantages are of a cosmetic nature which can have little significance to a 55 year old male. 14. The partial loss of deafness is going to inconvenience the Plaintiff but will cause no serious impediment to his enjoyment of life. 15. I have considered a number of cases which were referred to me and assess damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities at $20,000. 16. In accordance with the principles laid down in Jefford v. Gee (C.A.) 1970 2 Q.B.D. at P. 146 there will be interest on the special damages at 4% from the 19th May, 1973 and at 8% on the general damages from the 7th September, 1976. The Plaintiff is to have his costs of the action and this assessment to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations. 17. Dated this 26th day of April, 1976.
Representation: Mr. C.A. White of the Legal Aid Dept. appeared for the Plaintiff. No appearance entered by either Defendant. |