TAM KING YIU v. TSE CHUEN HING

HCPI 1030/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 1030 OF 2006

----------------------

----------------------

----------------------

D E C I S I O N

----------------------

1.  The case is referred to me on Pre-trail Review to determine whether to call the medical experts to give oral evidence and to estimate the length of trial and to set down in the appropriate list.

2.  The plaintiff was driving a motorcycle and he was knocked down by the defendant driving a light goods vehicle emerging from a building.  The defendant had pleaded guilty to careless driving and was convicted thereof.  The only possible issue on liability was whether the plaintiff was driving at 70 km/h above speed limit and thereby making the injuries more serious than otherwise had he been driving at a lower speed.

3.  As to the medical evidence, the experts agreed that the plaintiff had degeneration and disc protrusion at C3 to C6 levels prior to the accident.

4.  Order was previously made by the Master that the reports be admitted without the need to call the experts and there was no objection at that stage.

5.  The plaintiff’s expert, Dr Wong, said that disc protrusion could be caused by the captioned accident. While the problem of pre-existing degeneration and disc protrusion might loom large in cases where the issue was whether the plaintiff was merely experiencing continuing pain after accident, the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff made the question minor in the overall consideration.  The plaintiff is now walking with a limb with weakness and numbness on the lower limbs, and the upper limbs were allegedly so weak and slow in movement that the plaintiff claimed he could not resume any meaningful employment at all.  As such, the extent of difference in opinions as to disc protrusion would probably not be a major consideration in the assessment of the quantum.

6.  Miss Chih, for the plaintiff, agreed with the above analysis but was cautious that maybe the trial judge would nevertheless need to hear the experts.  From my view point, I do not think there is need for the experts to explain the reports.  If necessary, the experts could be informed to standby at the clinic during the trial period and be informed to come to Court to give evidence on the point as and when required by the trial judge.

7.  Having explored the extent of disagreement as to liability and quantum, the case can properly be set down in the Running List with 3 days reserved.

8.  I order that costs of this hearing be in the cause.