More Union Co. Ltd. v. Maio Kwok Sun

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13834 OF 2000

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

1. On or about 10 pm on the evening of 23 December 1999, the Plaintiff's vehicle was driven by his employee, Miss Koo. She was travelling on the second lane eastbound on Connaught Road Central. At the same time, the Defendant was driving his rented taxi in the third lane going northbound on Pedder Street. The two vehicles collided with each other. The Plaintiff is suing for damages to his vehicle and Defendant is counter-claiming for same, plus rental expenses and loss of income during the repair period.

2. The Plaintiff's witness, Miss Koo's evidence, was that as she approached the intersection, the traffic light was red and she stopped. A minute later the light turned green. She proceeded into the intersection and the Defendant's taxi ran into her vehicle. At the time, there was a vehicle on both sides of her car. The left car turned left and the right car followed her into the intersection.

3. The Defendant's version was that he had just picked up passengers going to the General Post Office. He turned from Queen's Road Central into Pedder Street. When he turned into Pedder Street, he saw there were five to six fire engines and ambulances on Pedder Street and Connaught Road blocking traffic. There was a traffic jam such that the buses on the left first and the left second lane were blocked, but he saw that his light was green, so he proceeded into the intersection of Connaught and Pedder. Because there was such traffic, he was travelling only at 20 kilometres an hour.

4. In essence, this is a case where parties had a collision in the intersection of two busy streets, each claiming they had the green light on their side. There was no independent witnesses nor any physical evidence and the decision must be based solely on the testimony of the parties' witnesses. After careful consideration of the witnesses' testimony, I prefer Miss Koo's evidence.

5. Mr Maio stated that as he turned into Pedder Street from Queen's Road, he noticed that the traffic lights were all green. His testimony was that from his experience, when one traffic light was green on Pedder Street, he could get past all the way to the bottom without stopping. The problem was that it may be true when he was travelling at a normal speed, but Mr Maio testified that on that evening he was travelling only at 20 kilometres an hour. At that speed there was insufficient time for him to do what he had expected to be able to do on other evenings, that is, get past the Connaught and Pedder intersection without stopping. And the fact that the letter from the Fire Services Department confirmed that on the evening in question, there was a " 1 Alarm Fire". A "1 Alarm Fire" is the lowest rate of fire and it was highly unlikely that there were five to six fire engines that stopped on Connaught Place blocking all traffic on the left first and the left second lanes on Pedder Street. The most likely scenario was that the buses that the Defendant noticed on his left were stopping for a red light and not because they were blocked by multiple fire engines.

6. As to Miss Koo's error in her first police statement, she testified that at the time she gave her statement, she could not draw out a sketch of that location. The police taking her statement had to show her a map of the area. Looking at a map and looking at the scene in real life are two very different situations. Under such circumstances, it was perhaps understandable that she may have mistakenly pointed to the wrong set of lights on the map when she gave her first police statement. In any event, Miss Koo had carefully and correctly corrected that error in her second statement.

7. Finally, I wish to add that the traffic lights in that particular intersection was very confusing on the Pedder Street side. The top photo on page 67 shows that there were no less than four sets of traffic lights facing the Defendant. There were those on his left, which the Defendant stated were blocked by the two double-decker buses. On his right, there were two sets of lights, one for right turning vehicles and one for traffic going straight, and of course, the traffic lights across on Exchange Square. By comparison, when stopped on the front line going east on Connaught Road, there was only one set of lights visible to Miss Koo. The chances that the Defendant had misread the traffic light was much higher than Miss Koo.

8. Before I reach my decision, I have already carefully considered the fact that the Defendant is a professional taxi driver with 25 years of driving experience and the fact that Miss Koo only had half a year of local driving experience. I have also considered the fact that as a Hong Kong Island taxi driver, the Defendant would have better knowledge of the traffic conditions than Miss Koo who resides on the Kowloon side. However, after considering all of these, I have reached the decision that Miss Koo's evidence was more credible.

9. Accordingly, I found that at the time of the collision, the Plaintiff, Miss Koo, had the advantage of the green light and there being no dispute on damages, judgment is for the Plaintiff as follows:

- Damages in the sum of $150,250.70.

- Interest on the aforesaid sum at the judgment rate commencing from today until payment is received.

- Costs of this action, together with all costs reserved, are to the Plaintiff.

10. Before I end, I have also carefully considered the matter of certificate for counsel. Although I appreciate the arguments submitted by both counsels, I could find no complication either in law or in facts in this case. This was not an appropriate case to merit certificate for counsel.