Wong Mei Yan v. Chan Pui Chin

HCA001139/1974

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

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

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

Coram: Mr. Registrar Doyle in Chambers.

Date of Judgment: 25th March, 1975.

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

DECISION

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

1. This is an assessment of Plaintiff's damages against Defendant arising as a result of personal injuries which she received in a road traffic accident which occurred on 26/1/73. At about 11.30 p.m. that day Plaintiff was crossing King's Road on a stud crossing near Healthy Street, Central North Point. While on the crossing she was struck and knocked down by a private vehicle AY2878 which was then owned and being driven by Defendant.

2. Interlocutory judgment in default of appearance for damages to be assessed was entered against Defendant on 1/8/74.

3. Following the accident Plaintiff was taken to Queen Mary Hospital. She remained there for nearly 5 months. She was discharged on the 9/6/73.

4. On admission to hospital she was found to have several fractures of the pelvis on the left side and a ruptured bladder. She was given traction treatment for the fractured pelvis. This was maintained for one month. Then a plaster of Paris Spica was applied which is a plaster cast stretching from the level of the chest down to include the whole of the left leg.

5. The rupture of the bladder was repaired and the bladder was drained by Catheter for 6 weeks. She regained control of the bladder function slowly over a period of 5 months but she still suffers some impairment in this respect.

6. She has a three quarter inch upward displacement of the left hip joint and the leg is displaced by three quarters of an inch. She does not walk with an obvious limp because she raises the heel of the left shoe.

7. Due to abnormality of the Sacro-Iliac joint and the swing of the pelvis altering the mechanics of walking it is almost certain that she will suffer pain in the lower back.

8. There is displacement of the left pubic rami and damage of the symphysis pubis.

9. Because of the pelvic injuries she is unable to give birth in the normal way. Caesarian section will always be necessary. She has had one baby and has been advised that she should not have more than two more children.

10. No witness was called for Plaintiff. Counsel for Plaintiff relied on Dr. Wedderburn's report which is agreed. (Exh. P.1.).

11. The defence called Dr. Wedderburn.

12. I have considered the evidence and the agreed medical report. I have considered the submissions of counsel for the Plaintiff and the solicitor for the defence and the cases cited by them.

13. Special damages have been agreed at $8,300.00. This leaves only the claim for general damages to be decided by me.

14. The Plaintiff sustained very serious injuries which resulted in her being detained in hospital for "nearly 5 months. She must have suffered shock and undergone severe pain and discomfort over a considerable period.

15. When she returned to work she walked with a limp and she told Dr. Wedderburn that she found her business of running a tailor's shop and teaching tailoring more difficult than before the accident. I am satisfied on Dr. Wedderburn's evidence that she is a cheerful woman who has never sought to exaggerate her injuries and I accept that she this difficulty.

16. The Plaintiff is a young woman. As a result of her injuries she will have to face certain handicaps and discomforts for the rest of her life. It seems certain that she will have a good deal of back pain. She has been deprived of the ability to bear children by natural childbirth and she will be compelled to limit the size of her family to three children. During the hearing the solicitor for the defence observed that there is no evidence that the Plaintiff wanted more than one child. With respect I do not think that this is the point. In my view the point is that her lawful options with regard to the number of her children have been restricted. The impairment of the bladder function is slight at this stage but I think it must necessarily cause her some anxiety and discomfort.

17. I award the sum of $27,000.00 as general damages. This with the agreed special damages of $8,300.00 makes a total award of $35,300.00. The Plaintiff is entitled to the costs of this assessment with certificate for counsel.

18. I award the Plaintiff interest on the special damages of $8,300 at the rate of 4% from the date of the accident until today and at 8% on the general damages of $27,000 from the 4/7/74, the date of service of the writ until today.

19. Dated this 25th day of March, 1975.

Representation: