LI YUET LOI v. TSANG CHIU YIU AND ANOTHER

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

BETWEEN

__________________________

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

_________________________

1. At the time of the accident the plaintiff was aged 61 years. He was a labourer in a textile factory.

2. As a result of the accident on the 19.3.82 he suffered 2 contusions on the forehead, lower back and ankle region. However, the more serious injuries were torn medial ligaments and an avulsion fracture of the posterior tibial spine of the left knee. He was first seen at United Christian Hospital and then transferred to Queen Elisabeth Hospital. He underwent an operation and spent 2 months in hospital. After this he had to attend physiotherapy twice weekly for 4 months.

3. Dr Wedderburn said his loss of function is 1% impairment of the whole man and in relation to earning capacity it was a 5% permanent disability. However, he said the resolve of someone of plaintiff's age was much less than a younger person. However he went on to say he ought to be able to undertake light work. I accept this evidence.

4. The plaintiff said he could only walk for 10-20 minutes before he needed to rest and therefore could not go out and get a job. He said he had worked at home far 1½ months but this then dried up.

Pain Suffering and Loss of Amenities

5. Mr Bhorwanny referred me to 3 very similar cases.

Ng Chai Man v Leung Ngai CA 55/83 where $18,000 was awarded.

 

Yu Man Chiu v Chow Chi Fun 2518/81 where $20,000 was awarded.

 

Yan Ho Yin v Wan King Hung and another HCA 7502/81 where $25,000 was awarded.

6. He said allowing for Li Ping Sun this gives a range today of between $27,000 and $37,500. The last case cited is more serious than the present one. The appropriate award here is, in my view, $30,000 and this sum is awarded.

Loss of Earning

7. The plaintiff is clearly entitled to full recovery for 9 months after the accident. This was confirmed by Dr Wedderburn's evidence. Mr Ho of Texwood, the plaintiff's former employers, said his average income was $1,400 p.m. at the time of the accident. I award

$1,400 x 9 = $12,6oo

8. For the 19 months to this hearing the plaintiff is not entitled to full recovery. Clearly he couldv'e obtained light work if he had bothered to try. I am satisfied he ought to have been able to earn $500 p.m. during this period. The appropriate multiplicand is $1750 - 500 = $1,250. The $1,750 is the median figure between what Mr Ho said the plaintiff earned at the time of the accident and what he would be earning today. I award

$1,250 x 19= $23,750.

9. The total award for loss of earning is therefore $36,350.

Loss of Future Earning

10. Mr Ho said daily workers frequently continued working in his company to their late 60's. I accept that. The appropriate multiplier here is 9, less of course the two years since the accident, giving a multiplier of 3. The appropriate multiplicand is $2,100 (today's earning) less the $500 he ought to able to earn.

$1,600 x 12 x 3 = $57,600.

Special Damages

11. I am satisfied on the evidence that all special damages as claimed ought to be awarded.

Summary

12. There will be interest at 2% p.a. on the general damages from the date of the service of the writ until judgment. There will be interest at 7% p.a. on the special damages from the date of the accident until judgment. There will be no interest on the award for loss of future earning.

13. The defendant will pay the plaintiff's costs of the assessment to be taxed failing agreement. The plaintiff's own costs will be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations. There will be a certificate for counsel.