Cheung Kam Lan v. Lee Tak Wai

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

Civil Action No. 16281 of 2000

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

Reasons for Judgment

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

The Accident

1. A collision between the plaintiff's car and the defendant's at the traffic light controlled junction on Connaught Road Central and Hilier Street. At the time the PW1 was the driver of the plaintiff's car and was crossing the junction intending to turn right from Hilier Street into the east bound carriageway of Connaught Road Central. When he reached the right lane of west bound carriageway Connaught Road Central after passing three lanes the collision occurred with the defendant's car which had just emerged from the stop line before the traffic light. The defendant was driving his own car. At the trial each driver blamed the other for jumping the red light causing the accident.

Contributory Negligence

2. It is not and cannot be disputed that one of the drivers jumped the red light. If the traffic light was green in his favour, there is nothing PW1 should or could have reasonably done to avoid the collision. He was proceeding normally along the junction. Even though he saw the defendant's car coming, there was nothing to suggest to him as a reasonable and prudent driver that the on coming car from the right was not stopping for the red light. It is not suggested to him what he should have done. Maybe if he accelerated or swerved to the left he could have avoided the collision. However these are not safe and reasonable manoeuvre in the circumstances as he was making a sharp right turn and was in the middle of crossing a junction. Even if such manoevre could have avoided the collision as a matter of hindsight, PW1 should not be blamed for not taking any of this. Through no fault of his own, he was put in an emergency situation and his split-second decision should not be minutely criticised. Therefore if the light was green in favour of PW1 the defendant would be wholly responsible for the accident.

3. Mr. Chiu, counsel for the plaintiff, argued that even if the traffic light was green in favour of the defendant, the defendant should still be partly to blame. The defendant said he was slowing down on seeing the red light ahead. Before he came to a complete stop, the light changed to green and on seeing this he accelerated a bit overtaking the stationary vehicles on his left. Mr. Chiu argued that because these stationary vehicles had not started off yet, the defendant should not have accelerated at all. It is true that a green in his favour cannot exonerate a driver in every case if he collided with a vehicle whose driver disobeyed the red light. The driver in whose favour the light is green is still under a duty to proceed with care when he passes the junction. In the present case it is not controverted that the defendant was not driving in excessive speed. He could not be criticised for not seeing the plaintiff's car at an earlier stage. In fact the defendant was able to notice the presence of the plaintiff's car and he applied the brake trying to avoid the collision. The ensuing impact is not heavy. It is not negligence on his part not to wait for the stationary cars to start off first. They were stationary for apparent and obvious reason, namely waiting for the signal to turn and did not serve as reasonable notice or warning to the defendant that the junction was not yet clear to cross. For these reasons I find that the defendant did not contribute in any way to the accident if the light was green in his favour.

Who Jumped the Red Light

4. I agreed with Mr. Leung that in many ways the evidence of the PW1 was unsatisfactory. He contradicted himself at times though he gave his answers spontaneously. I have no doubt that he was fully alert to the fact that the issue at the trial was who jumped the red light. In this regard he seized any opportunity that came his way to convince the court that the light was green in his favour. He was carried away and caught out when the green light he said he saw was shown to be the one which was not governing his direction traffic. He attempted to explain this mistake but to avail. I find he was making up something to boost his case. Equally, I am not convinced why he should pay such close attention to traffic lights when he had entered the junction. The traffic was smooth and his car was the first on the line and there would be ample time for him to complete for him to complete the crossing without any need to worry about the change of signal in the course of it. This again indicated he was ready to exaggerate his case. His evidence must be looked at with caution.

5. The defendant was criticised about his estimates of various distances and speeds. Mr. Chiu's arithmetic clearly shows the estimates were inaccurate. This is not surprising. These estimates are always difficult to make. His inaccurate estimates do not serve any useful purpose in discrediting him when he said the light was green in his favour. There were other details of driving manner which were not contained in his statement to the police. That again was insignificant. There are no inconsistencies between the version of events but only that the version given in court contained a small number of details which are insignificant.

6. It is case of one man's words against the other's. Each has a motive to misrepresent his evidence. The conversation after the accident is most crucial. Though PW1 could not give the details but he said the defendant admitted certain things to him and offered compensation. This was denied by the defendant. However he admitted they exchanged telephone number with one another. He in fact had contacted PW1. PW1 said the telephone conversation was about offer of compensation. The defendant said it was to inform PW1 that he himself had reported to his insurer. The defendant also admitted that the he had to end the conversation at the scene by telling PW1 that he had to go to pick up his son. He denied there was any discussion about compensation and if there was none I could not see why he should end the conversation in such a way. All these tends to support PW1 allegation that the defendant had made admissions and offered compensation at the scene. I prefer PW1's version of conversations at the scene and subsequent telephone contact to that of the defendant. From this I inferred the defendant must clearly understood after the collision that he was in the wrong and he would only have so understood because he realised he had jumped the red light. For all these reasons I accept the evidence of PW1 that the light was green in his favour when he started to cross the junction. There is nothing to show he was not proceeding carefully. I find the defendant entirely to blame for the collision.