Lau Tak and Another v. Chu Shun Yu
Read the full judgment text of HCA 129/1982 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 1 March 1983.
1. On 19th May 1980 the 1st Plaintiff was crossing Queen's Road Central when he was knocked down by a motorcycle owned and driven the Defendant.
|
HCA000129/1982
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT ____________ BETWEEN
____________ Coram: Master Betts in Chambers ------------------------------------------------------------------- ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES TO 1ST PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. On 19th May 1980 the 1st Plaintiff was crossing Queen's Road Central when he was knocked down by a motorcycle owned and driven the Defendant. 2. The 1st Plaintiff was injured, the Defendant was prosecuted for careless driving and breach of Licensing conditions and pleaded guilty. The present proceedings were then instituted and interlocutory judgment entered on 3 May 1982. 3. At the time of the accident the 1st Plaintiff was a 61 year old cook. He was taken to hospital where it was found that apart from a small haematoma on the back of his head he had cervical spondylosis and fracture of the first lumbar vertebra. A later report showed that he must have suffered a temporary partial dislocation of the cervical vertibrae. 4. The result of these injuries was considerable neck pain and temporary paralysis of all his limbs. He was treated by neck traction for four weeks. After three weeks he could move his arms again quite freely and could walk after about a month. He was discharged from hospital after 40 days but had to wear on orthopaedic collar for a further 6 weeks 5. In May 1981 he was assessed as suffering a 40% permanent disability. 6. After discharge from hospital he continued with physiotherapy, attended a bone setter, took tonic food and Chinese medicinal herbs. What he did not do, and what he was unable to do, was to go back to work. He tried a job as a watchman but failed to keep it. He gave evidence that because of his age and physical condition no one would take him on. Dr Wedderburn gave evidence he would not be fit for any kind of work. I accept that to be the case. 7. I will deal with my assessment of damages under the usual headings. Pain, suffering and loss of amenities 8. I was directed to the following assessments: -
9. He submitted that making due allowance for inflation the proper figure in this case should not be lower than $40,000. 10. I am persuaded that figure is a minimum and my assessment under this head is $45,000. Loss of future earnings 11. The medical evidence is that the 1st Plaintiff would, but for his injuries, have been able to work into his 70s and almost certainly would have done so.He is now aged 64 and I apply a multiplyer of 6. 12. His previous employer gave evidence that the 1st Plaintiff, at the time of the accident, had been employed by him for some years. His basic salary was $900 a month with double pay at Lunar New Year and two meals a day. The employer valued the meals at $150 a month. I assess his average earnings at that time at $1,125 a month and. making the usual allowance assess his average future earnings would have been $1,500 a month. 13. Damages under this head are, therefore, $1,500 x 12 x 6 = $108,000. Loss of earnings 14. Taking his average monthly earnings at the date of the accident at $1,125 and the number of months since then as 33 damages under this head are $1,125 x 33=$37,125. Hospital fees 15. I am satisfied on the evidence that the sum of $110 claimed was properly spent and it is awarded. Herbalist fees and tonic food 16. These were claimed in the total figure of $5,500 and receipts were produced. I have no doubt at least that sum was so expended by the 1st Plaintiff and that he has no doubt whatever of the beneficial consequences. I allow a figure of $10 a day for the period of six months, which I consider to be reasonable. My assessment under this head is therefore $1,800. 17. In summary I assess the damages awarded to the 1st plaintiff as follows:-
18. There will be interest on the general damages at the rat of 14% per annum from the date of the injury until judgment there will be interest on the special damages summarised in (b), (c) & (d) supra at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the writ until judgment. There will be no interest on the award for loss of future earnings. 19. Save as set out infra there will be an order for costs to the 1st Plaintiff with a certificate for counsel and for the 1st Plaintiff's own costs to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations. 20. When this assessment first came before me on 9th June 1982, having been set down for one hour, it was clear that was a gross under-estimation of the time to be taken. I directed that the solicitors acting for the 1st Plaintiff on the instructions of the Director of Legal Aid show cause why they should not personally bear the costs not only of the consequent adjourned hearing but also of a number of totally unnecessary subpoenas served on Doctors and others who were not in the event required to give evidence. The solicitors have not shown cause and I direct they bear their own costs of the adjourned hearing on 1st March 1983 and that they bear the costs of all subpoenas issued except for witnesses who actually gave oral evidence. Dated the 1st day of March 1983.
Representation: Brian Van Buuren instructed by Messrs Poon and Sum on first hearing and Mr Chow of Messrs Poon and Sum on adjourned hearing for the 1st Plaintiff. Defendant in person. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||