Ma Chi Fu v. Law Tit Wing and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 3551/1981 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. In January 1978 the Plaintiff was struck on the back by an iron bar which fell on him as a result of the Defendants' negligence. At that time the Plaintiff was aged 50 and employed as a night watchman earning $750 a month. He had been so employed for about 10 months.
Cited by 1 case
|
HCA003551/1981
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT ___________ BETWEEN
___________ Coram: Master Betts in Chambers Date of Hearing: 25th February 1986 Date of Delivery: 11th April, 1986 _______________________ ASSESSMENT DAMAGES _______________________ 1. In January 1978 the Plaintiff was struck on the back by an iron bar which fell on him as a result of the Defendants' negligence. At that time the Plaintiff was aged 50 and employed as a night watchman earning $750 a month. He had been so employed for about 10 months. 2. The writ in this action was not issued until May 1981. After certain vicissitudes an order giving directions was made in March 1983. By virtue of that order the action should have been set down for trial by June that year. It was not set down, but in May 1985 interlocutory judgment was entered by consent. Eight months later the present appointment was sought. The eight years which have elapsed since the accident have inevitably affected the quality of the evidence before me. 3. Medical reports have been agreed and record the course of the Plaintiff's recovery over the years. I will not set the reports out in extenso but summarise them :-
4. Thus the result of the accident is that the Plaintiff suffered some years of discomfort but has made a spontaneous recovery leaving a comparatively minor degree of disability. There is no suggestion his condition will deteriorate and Dr. Wedderburh, at least, appears to doubt whether the injury was ever sufficiently severe to preclude the Plaintiff working as a caretaker. 5. In his evidence the Plaintiff told me that after the accident he went back to work but was discharged after a month. He was not sure why but said "it could be I was not walking naturally or was not as strong." Not unexpectedly, after so long a time, no evidence was given by his farmer employer so I cannot really know why he lost that job. I accept, however, it more likely than not to have been a result of the accident. 6. Mr. Ma then explained in some detail his unsuccessful efforts to find employment as a caretaker or watchmen ever since. Mainly he replied to newspaper advertisements only to find the position already taken or to be told that, being then over 50, he was too old. 7. This evidence fell somewhat short of persuading me Mr. Ma was pursuing employment with any real determination. My doubts were reinforced by the further evidence that during this period he was assisting his wife in running a small stall whilst his children all contributed to the family income. At the time only the oldest child was working; but since then the remaining three have left school, gone to work, and combine to support the family. 8. Having heard all the evidence I find that a reasonable period for the Plaintiff to have remained unemployed, giving him the benefit of whatever residual doubts I may have, is six months. I also find he is left with a very small reduction of earning capacity. 9. At the time of the accident the Plaintiff was earning $750 per month. Allowing six months unemployment, therefore, I assess his loss of earnings as $750 x 6 = $4,500.00. 10. As the only work the Plaintiff tells me he has tried to get is that of caretaker or watchman his remaining disability is scarcely a handicap. He, himself, says it is his age that is the main drawback. Nevertheless there is some loss of earning capacity and I include it in my assessment for pain, suffering and loss of amenities. 11. The plaintiff gave evidence that following the accident he did take special food and medicinal herbs. He also incurred extra travelling expenses and hospital fees. 12. Apart from the hospital fees, where he produced receipts, his evidence was once more understandably less than precise as a result of the passage of tine. However I am satisfied such expenses ware incurred and assess an overall figure of $1,000 to include them all. 13. This leaves damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities. 14. I have been referred to a number decisions to assist me, the most useful being that of Mantell, J., in Li Yee-yuen v. Tam Wing - keung & anor. (HCA No. 9964 of 1982) where an award of $35,000 was made in 1985. 15. In that case the plaintiff suffered a whiplash injury and had to wear a surgical collar for a year. I find this is a less serious case and that the proper figure is $30,000. 16. My assessment is summarised : -
There will be interest on the general damages at the rate of 2% per annum from the date of service of the writ to the date of this assessment. 17. There will be interest on the special damages at the rate of 3.8% per annum for the same period. 18. I make a provisional order that the Plaintiff's costs be paid by the Defendant on the District Court upper scale with a certificate for Counsel. The Plaintiff's own costs are to be taxed pursuant to the Legal Aid Regulations.
Representation: Appearances: Mr. R. Baretto instructed by Messrs. Raymond Tang & Co. for the Plaintiff Mr. Shiu of Messrs. Cheung, Tong & Rosa for the Defendants | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case