Cho Kam Chuen v. Tse Chi Hung

HCPI000170M/2000

HCPI 170/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES LIST

ACTION NO. 170 OF 2000

________________

____________________

C O R R I G E N D U M

____________________

Page numbers 4 and 5 be replaced by the attached new page numbers 4 and 5.

- 4 -

path of the vehicles". Whether that is a material issue is for the trial judge. In any event it does not require expert evidence to decide what lane the Plaintiff was travelling in before he entered the junction. The second part deals with Dr Lim's views of the pre-impact speed of the vehicles but his second sentence concludes "... make it difficult to accurately determine the speed at which the vehicles were travelling before they collided with [certain] objects." He then makes a number of assumptions one of which includes the phrase "it is difficult to determine the actual speeds from the available evidence." Speed of vehicles in this accident is unlikely to be of significance. In any event the trial judge is able to make as good a general conclusion in relation to speed as any one else.

"The dispute regarding the Traffic Light Signal" is beyond expert evidence. It is unarguably a matter for the trial judge on all the evidence.

"Reactions of the Driver" is a hark-back to the section on his "Site Visit." These are findings of fact for the trial judge and do not constitute expert evidence. The last section is a short consideration of the seat-belt issue in the absence of any of the primary evidence necessary for the formulation of expert opinion.

The last sentence of the penultimate paragraph in this part concludes "it is very difficult to suggest how each injury sustained ... had occurred." His last sentence betrays the wrong approach. There was no examination of the seat belt to determine its condition.

His conclusions are none other than those within the fact-finding exercise of the trial judge. That relating to the question of the

- 5 -

seat-belt is self-evidently devoid of expert opinion. He says the Plaintiff was either not wearing a seat belt or not wearing one properly. Without an examination of the seat belt amongst other matters, it would be impossible to determine whether it was worn or could be worn properly. Even if there had been such an examination it is impossible to say that it would positively have determined this issue.

My attention was directed to a publication entitled "Expert Evidence" (1993) by Freckelton & Selby, I had cause to consider part of this publication in the case of Man Ching Fuk v. Lee Sui Nam & Another (H.C.P.I. No. 1085 of 1998). It is clear that the engineer who seeks to put forward an expert opinion in the form of a Reconstruction must have regard to primary evidence. It says at 12-71 (Reconstruction Techniques)

"For certain types of analysis it is critical that an appropriate examination of the crash scene be conducted to provide the basic information from which well-founded inferences may be drawn." (My underlining)

It goes on to identify "obvious items of importance." Other material statements are

"Much ... requires a first-hand inspection of the vehicle, preferably as soon as possible after the accident since the available evidence tends to degrade with handling and time."

"There are many respects in which photographs of a damaged vehicle cannot fully or even partially substitute for first-hand access to the vehicle itself. This is especially true if the photographs are not taken with an explicit understanding of what the reconstructionist requires."

In relation to information concerning a vehicle's impact with another or roadside object, or seat belt usage and signs of occupant contact with the