|
DCPI 534/2009
香港特別行區
區域法院
傷亡訴訟2009年第534號
| -------------------- |
| |
TSANG YU WA |
Plaintiff |
|
and
|
| |
LI SAU KAM |
1st Defendant |
| |
YAN YAN MOTORS LIMITED |
2nd Defendant |
| -------------------- |
主審法官： 區域法院暫委法官黃健棠
審訊日期： 2011年3月7及8日
頒下判案書日期： 2011年 4月8日
判案書
引言
1.原告人因交通意外受傷，被告人等承認責任，雙方就賠償金額問題交由法院判決。
背景
2.原告人於1953年10月19日在國內出生，1980年來港，在地盤工作3年焊接後，轉為廚師15年至1994年遇上交通意外，傷及背部，之後從1998年起再沒有工作，以綜援過活。
3.2006年6月9日，原告人在乘坐由第一被告人駕駛的小巴時，因後者不小心駕駛而受傷，據當時威爾斯親王醫院急症室報告傷勢為：-
“1. Right face hit against front seat.
2. Left neck pain and left upper limb numbness.
3. Left shoulder pain.
4. Numbness over left C5-C8 dermatome.
5. Tenderness over right neck, right back and low back.
6. X-ray cervical spine and left shoulder showed no fracture.”
(2007年5月21日報告)
4.原告人因是次意外，獲批1個多月病假，從2006年6月9日至2006年7月24日，與此同時，他接受物理治療近7個月，2007年5月25日的物理治療報告說：
“1. ……
2. In the initial assessment done on 16 June 2006, Mr. Tsang complained of neck pain, left arm pain, thoracic pain and back pain. On examination, his head was deviated to right side. The active range of neck was decreased. The sensation to light touch and power of left upper limb was decreased. Examination to back showed that the forward and backward bending were decreased. There was no neurological deficit over his lower limbs. The neck and back were tender to touch.
3. Physiotherapy was given to his neck first, then to his back. That included manual therapy to neck and back, pain relieving modalities, traction, mobilizing and strengthening exercise.
4. After 7 months of treatment, Mr. Tsang reported 60% of improvement with decreased pain over neck and back. His left arm pain reduced and muscle power improved. The range of movement of neck also improved. However the back stiffness persisted. The treatment was stopped after the last session on 17 January 2007 as his condition became stable.
5. ……”
5.另外，威爾斯醫院的骨科醫生亦在2007年6月7日作出以下報告：-
“……
Mr. Tsang was first seen by us in spine clinic since 1996 for low back pain and neck pain. Previous Xrays and MRI spine showed degenerative cervical spondylosis with clinical left C5-C7 radiculopathy and lumbar stenosis with clinical right side sciatica. He was treated conservatively with physiotherapy all along.
Mr. Tsang was admitted to Orthopaedics ward of Prince of Wales Hospital on 9.6.2006 after a road traffic accident on the same day. He was a passenger of a minibus which has head to end collision with another vehicle during the accident. Mr. Tsang complained of neck pain with transient left upper limb numbness and back pain with right lower limb numbness on admission. Clinical examination showed tenderness over his left shoulder. Cervical spine and lumbar spine have no definite tender point. Left upper limb demonstrated weakness over shoulder and elbow due to pain. Right lower limb has mild weakness from L2 so S1dermatome. Reflexes of both upper and lower limbs were normal. No definite sensation deficit. Clinical diagnosis was whiplash injury of neck and back sprain. Xray showed no fracture and normal alignment of cervical spine, right shoulder and lumbar spine. He was given physiotherapy for pain relief and mobilization exercise. He was also able to walk unaided with no more lower limb weakness or numbness upon discharge on next day of admission.
He was followed up in spine clinic on 24.7.2006 and 8.1.2007. His back pain and neck pain was decreased after outpatient physiotherapy. His residual left upper limb numbness and weakness was similar to previous follow up progress before accident on 6.9.2006. He was managed conservatively with analgesics as necessary and self exercise and will be renewed half year after the last follow-up.
……”
6.其後，原告人得法援協助，獲外委鄧律師代表處理有關索償，2007年11月6日，安排接受雙方骨科專家一起檢驗。在2007年12月2日的聯合骨科專家報告中，
“(3) ……
(4) Dr. Lau and Dr. Cheng reviewed the medical record from PWH.
- According to the consultation summary of the Orthopedic Clinic of PWH, Mr. Tsang had long history of low back pain since the traffic accident in 1995. MRI of his lumbar spine done in 1999 revealed degenerated L4-5 and L5-S1 discs. Discogram done in June 2000 showed ‘very degenerated L4-5 and L5-S1 discs’. Mr. Tsang had regular follow up at the Orthopedic Clinic all along.
The entry on 19 Jan. 2006 recorded ‘low back pain static, seen in neurology clinic for bilateral hand numbness’. The entry on 24 July 2006 was ’low back pain static, no lower limb numbness or weakness. Follow up in 6 months’ time, Dr. Lau and Dr. Cheng agree that this suggests that the condition of his low back did not change after the accident in June 2006.
- According to the consultation summary of the Medical Neurology Clinic of PWH, Mr. Tsang attended the Clinic first on 10 May 2004 for numbness of the scalp and right upper limb. He had investigations done. MRI of the cervical spine showed degeneration of the C3-4 and C6-7 intervertebral discs and no evidence of cord compression but there was possible bilateral C6 nerve root compression. Nerve conduction study ruled out carpal tunnel syndrome. He was last seen at the Neurology Clinic on 3 April 2006.
Dr. Lau and Dr. Cheng agree that Mr. Tsang had past history of degenerative disc condition of his cervical and lumbar spine and had radiculopathy symptom of the left upper limb and right lower limb prior to the accident in June 2006. Furthermore he had persistent symptoms and required continuous treatment at PWH prior to the accident in June 2006.
(5) …..
Dr. Lau and Dr. Cheng agree with the orthopedic colleagues of PWH that the diagnosis should be whiplash injury of neck and back sprain. The damage should have been done to the soft tissues over his neck and back.
(6) We would like to point out that the clinical picture as being described by the orthopedic colleagues of PWH, concerning the findings of the physical examination after his admission, is consistent with the picture of his past clinical problem including left C5 to C7 radiculopathy and lumbar stenosis with clinical right side sciatica. Mr. Tsang did not suffer any extra injury and was not recorded to suffer new or additional physical signs after the captioned accident in June 2006. The accident could have only caused aggravation of his pre-existing symptoms affecting his neck, low back and limbs.
(7) ……
It is now 1½ years after the alleged accident. Mr. Tsang is still complaining of severe pain and stiffness of his neck. He also complains of numbness of his upper limbs, more severe on the left side. Besides the complaint of increased low back pain since the accident, he also complains of bladder dysfunction and erectile dysfunction since the accident. Dr. Lau and Dr. Cheng agree that there is no evidence that Mr. Tsang has suffered injury to his spinal cord. His complaint of erectile dysfunction and urological problem should be unrelated to the captioned accident in June 2006.
(8) ……
(9) X-rays of Mr. Tsang’s cervical spine confirms the significant degenerative change at C5-6 and C6-7 levels of his cervical spine. There is slight decrease in the lordotic curvature. X-rays of his lumbosacral spine reveal significant degenerative change of the L4-5 and L5-S1 discs but the lordotic curvature is preserved.
(a) Dr. Lau opines that the relative good preservation of the lordotic curvature of his cervical and lumbar spine as well as the absence of the left shoulder over his neck and back suggest that the condition of his neck and back should have improved and is now in a satisfactory state. Any pain in his neck or low back should not be as severe as what he has been complaining of.
(b) Dr. Cheng wishes to say that the present condition of Ms. Tsang is that he is having some neck and back pain and stiffness, and paraesthesia. These are probably symptoms of the pre-existing degenerative condition of the neck and back, made a little worse by the present accident. There is no evidence to suggest any additional neurological damages. It is possible that there may be a little symptom magnification, but such behaviour is understandable.
(10) ……
(11) We assess Mr. Tsang to have suffered 1% of whole person impairment for the possible increase in his neck pain and 1% of whole person impairment for the possible increase in his low back as a result of the alleged accident in June 2006. Therefore Mr. Tsang has suffered a total of 2% of whole person impairment as a result of the alleged accident in June 2006.
(12) ……”
7.原告人不滿上述醫生及專家意見，在2008年1月及2月份分別前往以（a）超聲波掃描前列腺及膀胱和（b）磁力共振檢查頸椎，結果分別如下：
“Comment:
A small prostatic cyst is seen.
No other significant sonographic abnormality seen in the prostate and bladder.
（電腦掃描醫學診斷中心
2008年1月21日報告）”
“COMMENT
Cervical spondylosis with multilevel degenerative disc disease. Bulging C6/7 disc causes bilateral C6/7 neural foraminal stenosis, with impingement of left exiting C7 nerve root.”
（康和磁力共振醫學
診斷中心2008年2月27日報告）”
8.2009年3月6日，原告入禀本院提出本申索，案件按一貫程序進行訟狀、文件交換等等程序，當中包括：-
（a） 在同年4月14日，被告人等承認責任，雙方只就賠償金額作出爭議。
（b） 2009年7月29日，聆案官下令：
“1. ……
2. The medical evidence is to be limited to one orthopaedic expert for each party, namely Dr. David H.F. Cheng for the Plaintiff and Dr. Lau Hoi Kuen for the 1st and 2nd Defendants;
3. The reports of Government hospitals as to the treatment and care of the Plaintiff are to be adduced as agreed evidence without calling the makers thereof;
4. ……”
（c） 上述在2008年新做的磁力共振報告其後送往兩名骨科專家再作研究，在2009年10月28日的補充報告中，他們維持原有意見：
“We agree that the MRI showed essentially the same degenerative change at multiple levels of his cervical spine, again worst at C6-7 level with probable impingement of nerve root. This is therefore of no difference from the previous MRI done in year 2004.
Dr. Lau and Dr. Cheng agree that there is no need for any change to be made in our comment stated in the previous medical report dated 2 Dec. 2007.”
（d） 2009年11月25日，聆案官再下令：
“1. By consent and subject to the direction of trial judge, the joint medical report dated 2nd December 2007 and the supplemental joint medical report dated 28th October 2009 of Dr. Lau Hoi Kuen and Dr. David Cheng shall be adduced without oral evidence;
2. Notwithstanding that the time limit provided by paragraph 6 of the Order made by Master R. Lai dated 29th July 2009 has expired, the parties do have leave to instruct Dr. George Koo Chia Gee as the joint urological expert;
3. ……”
9.2010年2月25日，雙方的共同泌尿科專家報告說：-
“OPINION AND COMMENTS
1. …..
4. But following the injury in June of 2006, apart from the neck and back pains he also had retention of urine after admission and required catheterization to drain the bladder urine. After the removal of the catheter, he could pass urine but complains of persistent difficulty of urination with poor flow and incomplete emptying, with some “incontinence”. He was given a referral letter to the urological clinic but the appointment is not until July 2010.
5. Mr. Tsang sought help from urological in the private sector, Dr. CK Ma. An ultrasound scan showed normal bladder and prostate (without enlargement) and the post voiding residual was measured at 39 ml only. (not significant)
6. My physical examination showed no notable abnormality apart from some ill defined partial impairment of sensation over and genitalia and the perineum. There was no sphincteric weakness.
7. Because of his persistent urinary complaint, with you approval, I conducted an uro-flow and urodynamic study on him on 5th February 2010 at the St. Paul’s Hospital.
8. My investigations showed that there is abnormality of his bladder with weak contraction and needing straining to help to expel urine form the bladder and even so still does not empty the bladder well. There is deterioration of flow since the flow tests done by Dr. Ma in 2006. The conclusion is that he has an hypo-contractile bladder. This problem needs to be addressed and I recommend that he should be:
· followed up by urological specialist at 4 monthly intervals with measurement of flow rate and residual urine
· he should be provided with alpha adrenergic medications such as “Hytrin” to facilitate the outflow of urine (it had been shown that his condition was improved when taking such medication).
· a yearly ultrasound scan of the urinary tact with urinalysis and blood renal function tests. Bilateral varicocoels were noted, but these are not related to the back injury
· The estimated cost for the above regimen is that of HK$9,000 per year if done in the private sector.
9. Since 2006, he also has some impairment to his sexual function with impaired quality and duration of erection. Although he can have sex with ejaculation but sexual intercourse is much less frequent then before and with less satisfaction.
10. It is my opinion although he had chronic sprain of neck and back since 1994, and the accident on 9th June 2006 aggravated the same injured area, his urological complaints came on after the accident in June of 2006.
11. Assessment of impairment: My assessment of his urological impairment is that of 10% for his hypo-contractile bladder and 3% for his erectile dysfunction, giving a combined total of 13% urological impairment to the whole person.”
10.另一方面，原告人當時的代表律師就威爾斯醫院骨科2007年6月7日的報告對原告人病歷要求作出澄清，之後，2010年7月9日，有以下的更新或更正：
“……
Mr. Tsang was first seen by us in spine clinic since 4.11.1996 for low back pain after the claimed back injury in a road traffic accident on 20.5.1994. He has clinical right sciatica and discogenic lumbar back pain. X-ray lumbosacral spine in 1996 showed degenerative lumbar spondylosis with no acute fracture. MRI lumbosacral spine on 20.1.1999 showed degenerative change of L4/5 and L5/S1 intervertebral discs with no dural sac or nerve root compression. He was treated conservatively with physiotherapy.
Mr. Tsang complained right upper limb numbness since 2004. He was first seen by medical neurology physician of Prince of Wales Hospital left upper limb numbness problem since 10.5.2004. Clinically he has decreased light touch sensation over right C6 and C7 dermatome. Bilateral upper limb power and reflexes preserved normal. Myelopathic hand signs were negative. There was associated neck pain. X-ray cervical spine showed degenerative cervical spondylosis with mild C6/7 disc space reduction. NCT and EMG in May of 2004 showed normal results. MRI cervical spine on 12.6.2005 showed cervical spondylosis changes with spinal stenosis at C3/4 to C6/7 levels. There was no cord compression or myelomalacic changes of cord. Bilateral C6/7 foraminal stenosis was present with possible bilateral C6 nerve root compression. Patient was treated conservatively for cervical radiculopathy.
……”
11.就以上事宜，雙方代表律師同意以下安排：-
“……. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the amended medical report elaborate the medical history of the Plaintiff. As a result, the parties agree the medical history of the Plaintiff as follows:
1. The Plaintiff was first seen by the Spine Clinic of Prince of Wales Hospital in 1996 for low back pain (and not neck pain); and
2. As reviewed by the X-ray reported dated 10 May 2004 and the MRI report dated 12 June 2005, the Plaintiff suffered from cervical spine problem before the accident on 9 June 2006.
There are statements in the orthopaedic expert report and the urological expert report that the Plaintiff denied to them the existence of his cervical spine problem. Such denial actually refers to the allegation that the Plaintiff had suffered from neck pain since 1996. This was caused by the misunderstanding of the medical history of the Plaintiff which has now been rectified by the amended medical report of Dr. Lau Yan On dated 9 July 2010. The Defendants agree to disregard the expert’s said statements in the expert reports. For this reason, the parties agree that it is not necessary to revise the medical expert reports.”
(joint letter of 23 July 2010)
12.2010年9月21日起，法援不再協助原告人處理本案。
13.原告人親自在本案行事後，於：
(a) 2010年11月23日存檔修正損害賠償陳述書 ，將原來約$260,000的索償提高至$1.285m；其後，在2011年2月23日，書面表示接受案件賠償金額為$1m。
(b) 2010年12月15日存檔補充證人供詞，簡單說，他認為：
(i) 1994年的傷患，經治療及他長期堅持游水、騎單車、遠足等，已逐漸康復。
(ii) “2006年的意外前原告身體壯健”，這事實可用2002年至2006年拍攝的遠足照片証明。
(iii) 但是，這次“意外後卻成了[50%]永久傷殘！”，這亦由2009年2月23日為綜援而做的醫學評估可以確認。
(iv) 意外引至“頸椎C5-C7漩渦形式的損傷 ……”。
(v) 骨科專家醫生的意見是不對的，原告人並沒有隱瞞事實或誇大傷勢。
(vi) 泌尿科專家的報告也未有全面反影其苦況。
(vii) 政府醫院的文件、報告，包括威爾斯親王醫院的2007年6月7日及2010年7月9日的“更改報告”也不盡不實。
(c) 2011年2月15日，由於認為上述證據、報告、文件存有“大量（失實）不符合事實和脫離醫療記錄事實及莫視客觀事實”，他提出申請要求兩名骨科專家、泌尿科專家、兩位政府醫生及其前代表律師出庭作供，有關申請報告被余敏奇暫委法官拒絕，再將本案轉交本席審理。
討論
14.2001年3月7日及8日，雙方準時出席聆訊，原告人自行處理，而被告人等則由陳繼強大律師代表。本席簡單解釋本案審訊要旨及程序，再聽取原告人作供及雙方結案陳詞，然後將案件押後頒發判決書。
15.本損害賠償評估的重點為：因2006年6月9日的意外，原告人受了甚麼傷害，被告人應作出多少金錢上的賠償？
16.要解答上述問題，首先要作出事實裁決：本席應當接受政府醫生的報告？兩位骨位專家誰的意見？共同泌尿科專家意見？抑或原告人本身的證供？
(a) 首先，本案中的聆案官已作出一般對政府醫生報告的指示，即：它們會以同意證供（agreed evidence）形式在本案審訊中引進，這點對原告人有約束力。雖然本席明白原告人認為當中有錯，而威爾斯醫院亦的確在2010年7月9日發出新報告澄清其2007年6月7日的前報告，但本席相信這只屬醫生在撮要原告人多年病情時，未有將事情説得清楚明白而已，絕不是要陷害原告人；況且，在庭上雖然原告人多次嘗試指出部分政府醫院紀錄或報告不確，但只屬其個人意見，這等紀錄、報告均是由獨立的人仕記下及製作，本案的誰勝誰負對他們都無影響、關連，因此一般而言，也較為可靠。
(b) 兩位骨科專家雖然分別代表原告人及被告人等，但其實對原告人因是次意外引致的骨科傷勢意見相約，他們在研究有關原告人病歷後，同意原告人在2005年時已有頸椎（C5-6及C6-7）退化，意外只令原告人頸部因衝擊受傷和腰部扭傷，經治療後，已大致復原，因此而增加的頸、背痛楚只構成原告人損失2%工作能力；另外，被告人等專家認為原告人的痛楚應沒有他自稱的嚴重（should not be as severe as what he has been complaining of），而原告人本身的專家也同意他或許有少許誇大病徵（there may be a little symptom magnification）。原告人極其量只可以指出專家們曾將其2005年磁力共振報告，錯寫為2004年，不過，這除了已改正外，亦只屬手民之誤，不足以影響本席接納他們專業意見的可信性。
(c) 雙方同意合聘一位泌尿科專家，因此一開始他已有一定的獨立性，再者，整體而言，他的意見實在對原告人較為有利，因為他不同意兩位骨科專家認為原告人的泌尿等問題與是次意外無關，在安排多項檢驗後，根據事情發展經過及本身專業分析，相信意外對原告人泌尿系統共有13%整體能力損傷，對這意見，本席為之認同；另外，對原告人批評專家的不足、虛構其夫妻生活細節等投訴，一概不為接受，須知道，專家有其專業操守，對病人的病情、成因等等作出其分析、意見，即使原告人也有份聘請專家，不代表他一定要事事為原告人說話，而不顧獨立及客觀的大原則。
(d) 陳大律師說原告人不是一個可靠、可信的證人，本席三思後，同意這看法。一則，
“13. 原告人在本案聲稱2006年意外前由2002至2006年腰背痛已康復到可進行高難度的8小時遠足[C110]，這一點和他一直要接受綜援 ，沒有恢復全職或兼職工作的證供[C94]互相矛盾。……
14. 至於原告人聲稱的“C5-C7漩渦形式的損傷”[C111]，完全沒有根據。……
（陳大律師書面結案陳詞）”
二來，原告人在整個審訊過程中，一直堅持所有醫生、專家種種不是，其實這只因他明白到客觀證據對他完全不利，唯有在文件中找出對方的小問題藉以說服本席不信任他們而已。
再者，即使本席無須斷定他是不誠實的證人，明顯地，他的證供沒有客觀事實、證據支持，只屬其個人想法，還有，他提出的（50%）永久傷殘證據，其實亦只為其申請綜援而在2009年2月23日發出的文件，不能以它作為因是次意外而引致的受傷而相提並論。
17.綜合上述分析，在多半屬實的原則下，本席對雙方的事實爭議有以下裁定：
(a) 在是次意外前，原告人已有腰、頸病患。
(b) 如陳大律師撮要說：
“7. ……
原告人自1996年11月4日開始已在該院骨科部門就1994年5月20日的交通意外所受的腰傷接受治療。當時他已被診斷為有右邊坐骨神經痛（right sciatica）和椎間盤腰背痛（discogenic lumbar back pain）。1996年X光檢查確定有退化性腰椎關節強直症（degenerative lumbar spondylosis）。1999年MRI檢查確定有腰椎L4/5和L5/S1的退化性性病變。
8. ……
9. 再者，自2004年開始，原告人已存在有右上肢麻痺的情況。2004年5月10日開始，他便在威院的腦神經科接受左上肢麻痺的治療。X光診斷為退化性頸椎關節強直症（degenerative cervical spondylosis）。2005年的MRI也確定此症和頸椎C3/4至C6/7的狹窄病變（spinal stenosis），同時有C6/7雙邊孔道狹窄（bilateral C6/7 foraminal stenosis）可能壓住C6的雙邊神經根（nerve root）……”
(c) 是次意外只對原告人造成頸、背軟組織（soft tissues）受傷，是為：頸部因衝擊受傷及腰部扭傷。
(d) 在骨科角度，意外只少許加重原告人早已存在的傷痛，約損失2%工作能力；原告人也有少許誇大其病徵。
(e) 在泌尿科角度，意外對原告人其相關系統有13%整體能力損失。
(f) 意外前，原告人有時會參加郊遊、遠足活動，但須量力而為，更不是“涉及攀、登、爬、……等技巧，甚至遇到（上、下）搭配遊繩的高難度運動……”
(g) 意外後，原告人須減少並減慢這些活動。
18.根據以上裁定，原告人應得多少賠償？
傷痛及失去生活樂趣
19.雖然原告人一直表示不接受眾位專家意見，但其實他要求的傷痛及失去生活樂趣正是依據專家的評估而計算的：-
“2007年12月骨科專家報告指：“交通意外帶給原告的脊椎傷害合共為2%”
2010年2月泌尿科專家報告指：“交通意外帶給原告的泌尿系統傷害合共為13%”
骨科傷害加上泌尿科傷害總共為15%
根據2009年10月大律師的法律文件“骨科的2%”損害賠償金額HK$140,000（即每1% HK$70,000）這是痛苦及人生樂趣的賠償金額
痛苦及人生樂趣：15 x 7 = HK$1,050,000
法定利息
可豎直功能失調影響夫妻性生活：HK$100,000
（原告人修訂的損害賠償陳述書）”
不過，當然所謂每% $70,000的陳述並無法規或案例支持，不為本席接受。
20.這方面，陳大律師在結案陳詞時提議$80,000至$120,000亦列出5件案例供法院參考，本席認為這些案例中以Muhammond Saddiq v. Cheung Chi Keung, HCPI No. 1018 of 2006, 8 April 2008, CFI [2009] HKLRD 及Cheung Sik Kwan v. Lam San Mui, DCPI 126 of 2003, 30 June 2004，比較有參考性，前者的受害人傷勢與本案原告人類似，但較為嚴重，須放近一年病假，而且意外前亦沒有退化情況，另外，後者的受害人的受傷程序則比本案原告人輕，兩人同因意外對夫妻生活有不便影響；在衡量各方因素後，本席認為$150,000是一個合適的補償金額。
專家賠償
21.原告人要求$35,000專項賠償：
“…… 2008年1月21日超聲波報告、2007年2月27日的MRI報告、2009年1月2日入住醫院，1月3日出院、私家診所治療、購買激導性藥物、泳池門票（每年六個月計算）、車旅費、調補藥物等。合共HK$35,000
（原告人修訂損害賠償陳述書）”
本席同意陳大律師的意見，有關檢驗報告應屬訟費一部分，不能與醫療費混為一談，還有，除$2,900的補品收據外，原告人未有提出確切單據；另外，本席亦注意到浸會醫院2009年1月3日的$5,657用途不詳，它只可證明原告人曾入院接受治療，但病因不明，而原告人也沒有在審訊中交待。最後，本席也未有忘記原告人前代表律師在原有的損害賠償陳述書中列出比較詳細的中醫、跌打及車馬費等的資料。再考慮以上事宜後，本席同意原告人可共獲$15,000專項賠償。
未來醫療費用
22.原告人申索$100,000，陳大律師大方地表示假若法庭接納原告人可以並將會接受私人執業的醫生治療，被告人等對此則無異議。
23.本席相信原告人的計算及建基在泌尿科專家建議每年約$9,000私人執業的醫生費用，這方面，本席注意到原告人曾因政府醫院泌尿科要排期4年之久，而自行前往私家醫生尋求協助；再者，以本席觀察，原告人屬中國傳統男士，不大願意透露其私人生活，因此，雖然他是綜援收助人，可享免費政府醫療，但若涉及夫妻關係事宜，而私人醫療可提供較快、較完備的協助，原告人，在多半屬實原則下，將尋求私人執業醫生治理，因此，原告人可獲$100,000未來醫療費用處理其泌尿問題。
總結、利息及訟費
24.總結以上決定，被告人等須共同及個別支付原告人$265,000。
| |
|
$ |
|
| |
1．傷痛及失去生活樂趣賠償 |
150,000 |
|
|
2. 專項賠償 |
15,000 |
|
| |
3. 未來醫療費用 |
100,000 |
|
| |
|
265,000 |
|
| |
|
====== |
|
25.至於利息，按一貫慣例，就傷痛及失去生活樂趣賠償，原告人可獲從本案入禀日起至本判決書日以年息2%計算的利息；而專項賠償則用一半判決利率計算，由是次意外日起至本判決書日計算。
26.原告人亦可向被告人等取回損失評估的訟費，唯這只為暫時命令，倘任何一方認為法院應作修改或對與訟費有關的其他事情未有知悉，均可在14天內，以傳票方式提出改動申請。另外，如適用的話，在所有當原告人仍由法援協助的時侯，他本身的訟費，則按《法律援助規例評定》。
原告人無律師代表
被告人由Messrs. Winnie Mak, Chan & Yeung 指示Mr. Daniel K.K. Chan大律師代表
|