CHU KIT YING v. CHUNG KING KWONG

1983 No. 3502

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

____________

BETWEEN

_________________________

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

__________________________

1. The plaintiff was a married woman aged 47 and prior to the accident was engaged with her husband in raising pigs and ancillary farming activities.

2. On 14.6.81 she was pushing her iron cart along a path when she was struck by a goods vehicle driven by the defendant. Her injuries comprised fracture of the pelvis on the right side affecting the acetabulum and right inferior pubic ramus; fracture of the right lower ribs; anterior osteophyte on the lower border of the body of the 4th cervical vertebra and the upper portion anteriorly of the 5th cervical vertebral body. As a result of these injuries the Plaintiff:-

3. I received detailed evidence, oral and written on the injuries as described above, on the likely need for future treatment, and on the general physical prospects of the Plaintiff. I was satisfied inter alia that hip replacement and spinal fusion were a likelihood. In addition to her present discomfort the Plaintiff expressed herself to be in apprehension of the need for further treatment of such a radical nature.

4. The plaintiff impressed me as a cheerful robust woman who enjoyed her work on the farm and generally enjoyed life. Her earning capacity was substantially reduced. I heard independent evidence as to average earnings of a person like the Plaintiff engaged in similar work. I had every reason to believe that she could have continued to work at such a level of income for some 8 years. Her earning capacity was reduced by her injuries to a point where it can be considered negligible. Mrs Barnes suggested a multiplier of 5 and I consider that reasonable. I consider the likelihood of further treatment, as described, to be a reality. It is probable that the Plaintiff will survive to the point where such treatment is considered necessary. The stated present cost of such treatment will require to be increased to take account - as far as that is possible - of rising costs and I assess the likely cost thereof at a point, say, 10 years from now. Weighed against that I have considered the possibility that, for one reason or another, such treatment will not in fact be necessary. Following Pillai v Yeung (1966 H.K.L.R. P. 366) I include that head of claim within the category of general damages. I have given due regard to the fact that the prognosis on this luckless lady is very unattractive; the degenerative processes described by the medical experts will continue and relief - partial relief - from eventual discomfort of a high degree will only be attained by complex, sophisticated and expensive surgery.

5. Against this background I assess damages as follows:-

A. Special Damages:-

B. Special Damages

6. General damages will attract interest at 2% p.a. from date of writ to date of judgment; special damages at 5½% p.a. from date of accident to date of judgment.

7. Costs will be to the plaintiff and will be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.

8. Dated this 15th day of August, 1984.