Wong Tai and Another v. Tang Wing Keung
Read the full judgment text of DCCJ 4068/2002 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment.
1) On 10 July 1998, the defendant drove his car negligently. It crashed into the 1 st plaintiff’s goods vehicle [(2) 5], driven by the 2 nd plaintiff. As a result, the fresh seafood on board belonging to the 2 nd plaintiff was lost. On 7 March 2000, the defendant was convicted of careless driving. The magistrate found that he had jumped the red traffic light [(2) 40] and bumped into the side of the goods vehicle, which was making a rightful turn. The 1 st plaintiff claimed the towing [(2) 1
Cites 2 cases
|
DCCJ 4068/2002 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CIVIL ACTION NO. 4068 OF 2002 -------------------- BETWEEN
-------------------- Coram : Deputy District Judge E. Yip in Court Date of Hearing : 11th October 2006 Date of Handing Down Decision : 18th October 2006
-------------------- DECISION -------------------- The plaintiffs’ case 1)On 10 July 1998, the defendant drove his car negligently. It crashed into the 1st plaintiff’s goods vehicle [(2) 5], driven by the 2nd plaintiff. As a result, the fresh seafood on board belonging to the 2nd plaintiff was lost. On 7 March 2000, the defendant was convicted of careless driving. The magistrate found that he had jumped the red traffic light [(2) 40] and bumped into the side of the goods vehicle, which was making a rightful turn. The 1st plaintiff claimed the towing [(2) 14 – 15] and repair costs [(2) 16]. The 2nd plaintiff claimed the value of the seafood [(2) 6 – 7]. The defendant’s case 2)In his Defence, the defendant denied liability and alleged contributory negligence in the way the 2nd plaintiff drove the goods vehicle. He also denied quantum. The legal principle 3)It is for the defendant who has been convicted of careless driving to prove that despite the conviction, he was not negligent [per Cheung J (as he then was) in Lau Ka Po v Man Cheuk Ming & Anor., HCPI 584 of 1996]. 4) It is for the defendant who alleged contributory negligence to prove it [Dummer v Brown & Anor., [1953] 1 QB 710]. 5)It is for the plaintiffs to prove damages they incurred as a result of the defendant’s negligence. If the defendant alleged that the normal measure of damages should not apply because the plaintiffs ought reasonably to have taken certain mitigating steps, it is for the defendant to prove it [Roper v Johnson (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 167, applied in Fyfe v Scientific Furnishings Ltd [1989] ICR 648]. The trial 6)On 11 October 2006, at trial the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs’ witness statements were admitted into evidence [(3) 6 – 9; (3) 1 – 5]. The defendant did not cross-examine them or challenge their evidence. The defendant did not rely on any written statements that he had ever made. He called no witnesses. My findings 7)I am satisfied that the accident happened as described by the 2nd plaintiff. The defendant was negligent in jumping the red traffic light. The defendant failed to prove that he was not negligent, or that there was contributory negligence on the 2nd plaintiff’s part. The plaintiffs put forward various items and amounts of damages. The defendant failed to challenge such damages in the total sum of $110,183.00 comprising:
The conclusion 8)I give judgment in the sum of $38,399.00 (namely $2,000.00 + $36,399.00) to the 1st plaintiff, and in the sum of $71,784.00 to the 2nd plaintiff, with interest at judgment rate from the date of the Writ (namely 3 July 2002). The defendant shall also pay costs to the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs. I do not propose to grant a certificate for counsel. This costs order nisi shall become absolute 14 days from today.
1st and 2nd Plaintiff: represented by Mr. Kelvin Leung instructed by Messrs. Francis Kong & Co., Solicitors. The Defendant: Mr. Tang Wing Keung, in person. |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under DCCJ 4068/2002