Chong Chun Kar v. Mak Moon Yau and Another

HCA000962/1970

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 962 OF 1970

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

Coram: Briggs J.

Date of Judgment: 22th November, 1971.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This case arises out of a traffic accident which occurred on July 4, 1969 in Pokfulam Road. The deceased Chong Chun Kar died from the injuries he received in the accident that same day. It is unnecessary to say more about the accident since the first and second Defendants admit that it was the result of their negligence. The only question for the Court is the quantum of damages.

2. The action is brought under the Law Reform (Misoellaneous Provisions) Ordinance and the Fatal Accidents Ordinance.

3. As to the former Ordinance I would award $8,000 for loss of expectation of life. There is no evidence of any pain or suffering. The deceased was rendered unconscious by the accident and did not regain consciousness. So there will be no award under that head. The sum of $1,100 as funeral expenses is not in dispute and the Plaintiff as administrator of the estate of the deceased is entitled to judgment for that amount.

4. The deceased at the time of the accident was employed as a gardener in the Government Service. He was 44 and earned $415 per month from that employment. In addition he earned other moneys which he retained for his own use. The deceased lived with his father who at the time was 69. His father has retired from working and was wholly dependent upon the deceased.

5. The father of the deceased gave his evidence in a straight forward way. And I accept his evidence as being truthful. He said that the deceased had a wife in China and two children also in China. The wife was 38 at the time of the accident the two children were then 22 and 17. The two children are working as farmers. But the wife was wholly dependent upon the deceased since she cannot work, being paralysed. The deceased used to hand his father the whole of his wages from his employment with Government. This sum, $415 per month, was then divided into two. $200 was sent to the wife in China: and the deceased and his father lived on the remaining $215. As I have said, the deceased made further sums which he kept for himself. The father of the deceased ran the household. There was no rent to pay because the two of them were squatters.

6. I think that the amount of the dependency so far as the wife is concerned must be taken to be $200. And I think that the multiplier should be 13. This gives a sum of $31,200. This sum must be scaled down to allow for the usual vicissitudes of life and from the fact that it will be paid as a lump sum. It should be reduced by one fifth which gives a figure of $24,960.

7. I do not think that it has been proved that the son and daughter were dependent on the deceased. It is reasonable to suppose that they were not since they are both young workers in a commune. And I therefore make no award so far as they are concerned.

8. The father of the deceased was as I have said 69 at the time of the accident. I think that the amount of his dependency should be $130 and that the correct multiplier is 8. I arrive at this figure as a multiplier because the father of the deceased struck me as being hale and in excellent condition. This gives as a figure of $12,480. Scaling this down as in the other case and rounding the figure off we get an amount of $10,000.

9. The sum awarded under the Law Reform Ordinance will merge with the sum awarded under the Fatal Accident Ordinance except for the funeral expenses.

10. There will be judgment for $34,960 which is to be apportioned thus: $24,960 to the wife Lam Chi: and $10,000 for the father of the deceased. In addition the sum of $1,100 is payable to the estate of the deceased. This brings the total to $36,060.

11. The Plaintiff is to have his costs which are to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.

Representation:

M. Asome (K.C.Yung & Co.) assigned for Plaintiff.

R. Tang (Chan & Ho) for 1st Defendant.

W. Chan (E. Cheung & Co.) for 2nd Defendant.