SIU HIN SIU v. DURA DUCT INTERNATIONAL LTD

HCPI 1241/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 1241 OF 2003

______________________

______________________

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

1.  Mr Siu says that at about 5 or 6 in the evening on 22 December 2000, the day after the Winter Solstice, he fell on his back while working for his employer Dura Duct. 

2.  According to Mr Siu he was carrying a duct pipe from the street outside into Dura Duct’s premises at the time.  The duct pipe was not particularly heavy (about 10 kgs), although it was somewhat bulky (about 1 m long). 

3.  The accident is said to have happened while Mr Siu was descending a flight of about 4 wooden steps leading from the street down into Dura Duct’s premises situated a little below street level.  The steps had no railing.  Mr Siu claims that debris, including metal cuttings and tools, were littered on the wooden steps.

4.  Dura Duct, on the other hand, pleads that the accident never happened.  It says that no one saw anything happen and no one reported any incident.  This was despite the fact that there should have been other workers in Dura Duct’s premises at the alleged time.  Mr Siu himself did not say anything about the accident until the following day when he asked for sick leave.

5.  Dura Duct therefore denies liability.  But it does not appear seriously to challenge quantum as it has not put in any answer to Mr Siu’s Statement of Damages.  Contributory negligence is not alleged.  I say it “does not appear” because Dura Duct’s solicitors have gone off the record and Dura Duct has not thereafter sought to be represented by a director.  Thus, Dura Duct has not appeared at this trial and has called no evidence.

6.  Having heard Mr Siu and his wife give evidence, I am satisfied that the accident happened as Mr Siu claims.  I accept that the wooden steps were littered with tools and metal debris as Mr Siu was descending into Dura Duct’s premises.  Although dangerous, he had to use that staircase because there was no other entrance to the premises that could conveniently be used to do his work.  Nor is there any evidence that Dura Duct had in place any safe system to ensure (for example) that the steps were regularly cleared of any tools or rubbish.

7.  I can only speculate as to why no one noticed or reported the incident.  It may well be because the accident occurred just before the working day ended at 6 pm and everyone was hurrying to finish his job before going home.  Mr Siu himself said nothing because, although in pain, he thought that it was no great matter and the pain would soon subside.  He did, however, tell his wife about the accident upon reaching home.

8.  It follows that Dura Duct is liable to Mr Siu for breach of its duties at common law, both as occupier and employer, to take reasonable care.

9.  As a result of his accident, Mr Siu has been suffering from persistent pain in his lower back.  This back sprain has affected him physically and to a certain extent psychologically.  According to the joint expert report of Dr Lam Kwong-Chin filed in these proceedings, having already undergone intensive back rehabilitation, Mr Siu is unlikely to see his present condition improve.

10.  Given Mr Siu’s physical and psychological impairment as a result of his accident, I accept that he is entitled to the damages claimed by him. 

11.  In particular, I think that Mr Siu is entitled to the following heads of claim:-

(1)	Special damages:-
	(a)	Pre-trial loss of earnings (covering the period from 22 December 2000 to today): $705,134.00
	(b)	Pre-trial loss of MPF: $35,256.70.
	(c)	Medical expenses: $26,560.00
	(d)	Travelling expenses: $3,141.00
	(e)	Tonic Food: $10,000.00
(2)	General damages:-
	Pain, suffering and loss of amenity: $300,000.00
(3)	Pecuniary damages:-
	(a)	Post-trial loss of earnings (using Mr Siu’s $8,580.00 salary at the time of the accident less a salary of $6,250.00 which Mr Siu might earn as a watchman and adopting a multiplier of 10): $279,600.00
	(b)	Post-trial loss of MPF: $13,980.00
	(c)	Loss of earning capacity: $50,000.00

12.  The foregoing add up to $1,413,671.70.  From this sub-total, one must subtract the $352,116.24 which Mr Siu has previously received by way of employees’ compensation.  That leaves an amount of $1,061,555.46 (exclusive of interest).

13.  Interest on special damages will run from the date of the accident to today at half the judgment rate. 

14.  Interest on general damages will run at 2% from date of writ until today. 

15.  Interest on the resulting judgment sum will run at the judgment rate from today until payment.

16.  I will now hear submissions on costs and any other outstanding matters.