鍾建英 對 英華清潔服務有限公司

CACV 209/2013

香港特別行政區

高等法院上訴法庭

民事司法管轄權

民事上訴

民事上訴案件2013年第209號

（原區域法院傷亡訴訟案件2009年第1262號）

________________________

________________________

上訴法庭副庭長林文瀚頒發上訴法庭判案書：

1.  上訴人是區域法院案件DCPI 1262/2009的原告人。她是被告人的前僱員，自2005年11月起受僱擔任清潔工人的工作，當時月薪$5,080。她分别於2006年6月20日及7月11日在工作時因工受傷，當時她42歲。

2.  在2009年，原告人在區域法院入稟，向被告人追討疏忽賠償。

3.  在2010年4月30日，經2天的審訊後區域法院暫委法官李慶年裁定原告人的申索成立，在扣除僱員補償$145,003.07後，判決被告人須賠償$216,002.13及由2006年7月11日起計的利息。

4.  關於事發經過，本庭可引述李法官判案書第15至17段：

「第一次事故發生在2006年6月20日下午約1時，清潔組長馬姐（全名不詳）帶領她和兩名清潔工人到彩虹邨翠琼樓13樓開始進行清洗走廊的工作。當日她們須清洗7個樓層的走廊。由13樓開始，她們所用的沖洗工具包括有竹掃把， 水刮和水喉等。申請人主要負責使用竹掃把洗涮地面和清理積水。

當她在10樓清洗走廊地面期間， 突然感覺腰部微微一拉，即時感到腰背痛楚，她向馬姐要求休息一會。經過約二十分鐘後的休息， 申請人繼續工作至約4時左右，這時申請人腰背的痛楚比之前變得更嚴重便要求提早回家休息。申請人翌日照常上班，下班後感覺疲累不堪，腰背痛楚持續，無法入睡。於是在6月22日早上向主管請病假，並往聯合醫院急症室求診。之後， 她一直獲發病假至7月4日復工。

第二次事故發生在2006年7月11日約早上9時， 申請人與另外一名工友「亞好」(全名不詳) 在彩虹邨金華樓搬運一個3呎x 2.5呎x 2呎舊衣櫃期間， 「亞好」表現得不合作，只願意搬運衣櫃的層板，由於上址沒有電梯，她唯有獨力由6樓垃圾房邊推邊搬，至2樓梯間突然感到腰背劇痛，便向主管請辭，但主管表示她須給予7天通知。申請人翌日繼續上班，但難忍痛楚，下班後便往伊利沙伯醫院急症室求診。」

5.  原告人不服李法官就賠償金額的判決，向上訴庭提出上訴。

6.  上訴庭副庭長楊振權於2013年10月10日給予上訴許可。

7.  在原告人2013年10月15日發出的上訴通知書，她提出的上訴理由如下：

「要將來收入、要精神和痛苦的補償和賠償，要疏忽賠償。是醫院的證明。」

8.  就原告人的傷勢，李法官在描述有關的醫療及專家報告後，在判案書第20至22段綜合如下：

「綜合上述而言，本席接納骨科專家秦醫生所指，第一次事故後原告人的腰背痛是原發性的(pre-existing)，不是創傷性的，治療證據亦反映經檢查原告人後， 沒有發現脊椎神經受損，原告人步態正常。在2006年6月28日再次檢查顯示原告人腰背兩側肌肉有觸痛跡象，但步態正常。

但本席不同意第二次事故的腰背及肌肉和韌帶受損也是正常勞損的復發。這與治療證據不吻合，治療證據顯示原告人於2006年7月12日向醫院急症室求診，指稱搬運重物時扭傷腰部導致背部疼痛。經診斷後發現原告人身體狀況大致良好，腰背近脊椎有觸痛。本席接受劉醫生所指第二次事故是腰背扭傷，不是原發的，是創傷性的。

綜合上述而言，兩位骨科專家都沒有指出原告人就兩次事故有任何永久地部分喪失工作能力。而兩位精神科專家則認為是第二次事故所產生的痛症導致原告人患上「適應失調症」，陳醫生認為因「適應失調症」而招致原告人永久地部分喪失工作能力為5%。本席接受以上分析。」

9.  李法官在判案書第39至48段交代他就賠償金額的計算，並於第48段總結如下：

痛苦、苦楚及失去生活情趣(PSLA)	$180,000.00
審前收入損失	$154,686.00
將來收入損失	-
工作能力的損失	$15,240.00
特別損害賠償	$11,079.20
總計：	$361,005.20
減：僱員補償金額	($145,003.07)
合共：	$216,002.13

10.  按原告人上訴通知書提出的理由，她的上訴是針對：

(a) 痛苦及精神的賠償；及

(b) 收入的損失。

11.  本庭必須強調：在上訴中上訴庭主要考慮的是原審法官的判決有否犯錯。上訴庭只會按照上訴人所提出的上訴論據來考慮這個議題。

12.  在疏忽賠償金額方面的上訴，既定的法律原則如下：原審法官就賠償金額的評定可以在合理限度内有不同程度的差異，上訴庭只會在原審法官犯了嚴重錯誤或違反法律原則或在判定金額屬完全錯誤估計之情況下才會干預，見Cheung Kai Chi v Chun Wo Contractors Ltd [2008] 1 HKLRD 102；Tong Siu Wai v Poon Wing Fu [2012] 5 HKLRD 407。

13.  在2009年8月兩位骨科醫生的聯合專家報告中第47至49段，描述原告人當時狀況如下:

「47. Low back pain on the lumbar spine region which is continuous and nonstop and it sometimes wakes her up. Sometimes there is sharp pain and pain intensity is from grade 7 to grade 10 (sudden) according to the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) [Grade 0 = no pain; Grade 10 = extreme unbearable pain]. It increases when moving her body forward on chair; or sometimes when squatting to pick up wet-cloths from the washing machine, or when lifting heavy object of 1-2 catties or when sitting on low chair. Severe pain lasts for a few hours and she needs injection. Now she is on 2 tablets of analgesics per day. Pain can be relieved by ointment and analgesic and pain intensity goes down to 5-6/10 grades. She said that she ‘had quarreled with neighbour’ and she had to move to a home without lift.

48. Right lower limb and left lower limb ‘numb’, with right more than left, like ‘no leg there’. She is unable to stand/or aware of standing on ground. She is better on walking. It occurred more than one year after the ‘sprain’ injury. It is intermittent and it occurs on sitting for long from 15 minutes to more than an hour. There is no other condition causing the numbness. With massage from 1-2-3 minutes to 10 minutes, it relieves the ‘numbness’.

49. Urinary incontinence and she is on sanitary pad.  She said that she would not go see gynaecology doctor.  It appeared more than one year after the injury.」

14.  至於原告人的「適應失調症」，在2009年8月兩位精神科醫生的聯合專家報告有詳細交代。其中第23至26段及第29至30段提到：

「23 Pain and Mental Condition: She said the mood state was closely related with her back pain. She became much more depressed and irritable and much less energetic when there was a greater sense of pain.

24 Family Relationships and Mental Condition: She did not have much complaints over her husband, though he had scolded her for being useless (“廢人”). She was a bit proud of her son. However her relationship with her daughter remained poor. She received repeated humiliation from her daughter. She has tears whenever she is talking about the daughter.

25 Social Relationships and Mental Condition: She used to play mahjong with some people living in the same estate. They appeared to be her only friends. After the accidents, she said she had been repeatedly complained or scolded by them for being slow when playing. She found their words humiliating too. She felt sad about it and thus her social activity was further reduced.

26 The Effects of Psychiatric Treatment: She said the treatment she received from the psychiatric clinic has been helpful. Now she has a better mood, better sleep and is less irritable. She said she sometimes forgot taking the drugs. If she had omitted the medication for days, her mood would become worse. Thus if she met her previous colleagues in the estate at this juncture, she tended to think that they were teasing at her, and gossiping that she was faking her discomforts. She believed they looked down upon her. She said she knew because she was told by a better friend among them that they really did make those comments at work. However, if she continued taking the medicine and her mood was fine, she could be able to greet those colleagues on street.

…

29 Travel: The traveling ability is mainly restricted by the pain. But the pain can in turn worsen her emotion. She said if she had a severe pain, she could keep staying at home for 1 to 2 weeks. She always went out with an umbrella. She felt breathless and pain at the back especially when walking up slope or up stairs. Hence she needed to rest for 2 times if she had to climb 4 flights of stairs to her home. She said when she was going down, it would be better. She asked her husband to carry weight if going out together. She said she could go out alone. In fact she went to a nearby Chinese restaurant alone once per 2 weeks. She could travel by MTR alone. She said she could go for a longer distance if she was accompanied by her husband. She paid less visits to her siblings at Shenzhen after the accidents. Now she needed her husband to take her to the border and her younger brother would pick her up with a car on the other side of the border.

30 She has not worked after the 2^nd accident.  She was given sick leave by orthopaedic surgeon for 2 years.  She had not been granted sick leave by psychiatrist.  She says she could not work because of the painful symptoms.  She would be happy if she could work.」

15.  痛苦及精神的賠償屬痛苦、苦楚及失去生活情趣 (PSLA) 的範疇。李法官在判案書第39至43段考慮了下列案例來得出他這方面的評定：

(a) Chan Chung Keung v Greenroll Ltd HCPI 275/2005;

(b) Lam Wa Lai v Startlong Development Ltd DCPI 624/2003;

(c) Tam Kwok Man v Kowloon Motor Bus HCPI 755/2001; 和

(d) Ahmed Masood v Chung Kau Engineering DCPI 517/2003.

16.  本庭並且考慮以下的案例以及其中所提及的其他案件，就PSLA所判定的金額：

(a) Tong Siu Wai v Poon Wing Fu [2012] 5 HKLRD 407;

(b) Cheung Oi Yan Ruby v Wong Hoi Sum [2012] 4 HKLRD 334; 和

(c) Zahid Anwar v Graceful Sound Ltd HCPI 410 of 2008, 31 Aug 2012.

17.  雖然這3宗案件均是在本案原審判決後才判定，但當中引用的案件很多都是在原審判決前判定的。無論如何，本庭可以考慮原審判決後的案例來處理本上訴。

18.  本庭留意到正如在今次上訴一樣，在原審時原告人没有律師代表。李法官引用的案例均是由代表被告人的大律師提供。在該4宗案例中，李法官採納了PSLA金額最高的Chan Chung Keung v Greenroll Ltd HCPI 275/2005作為參考。但Chan Chung Keung案中原告就抑鬱所受的影響明顯較本案的原告人輕。

19.  在我們的司法制度下，律師及大律師均有專業責任向法官援引合適的案例，不論相關的案例是否支持他當事人的立場或他本人的論點。在人身傷亡案件中，法庭很多時都參考律師及大律師援引的案例來裁定PSLA賠償金額。本庭認為律師或大律師除了援引情況比涉案原告輕微的案例，也應當援引一些案情較為嚴重的案例，使法官可以衡量何謂合理賠償幅度的上限及下限。

20.  在今次的上訴聆訊中，代表被告人的徐大律師，除了引用原審時經已引用的案例，他再向本庭呈交兩宗案例：

(a) Ho Man Fong v Sime Darby Motor Service HCPI 1096 of 2003, 19 July 2005; 和

(b) Ko Kam Wai v Sze Hak Fung HCPI 292 of 2005, 11 July 2006.

21.  徐大律師依賴這兩宗案例，向本庭陳詞本案原告人應得的PSLA賠償為$180,000至$200,000，所以李法官$180,000的判決屬合理範圍内，上訴庭不應干預。

22.  本庭不接納這論點。在Ko Kam Wai，張法官在2006年判決原告可得$200,000 PSLA賠償。雖然單從身體受傷程度來看，該案原告人情況比本案原告人嚴重，但是該案原告人所受傷害沒有引發精神問題。若以整體情況來看，本案原告人因傷引致的痛苦及失去生活情趣比該案嚴重。

23.  正如高等法院首席法官張舉能在本上訴聆訊中提及，在人身傷亡案件PSLA賠償金額的爭辯過程中，一般來說律師及大律師均應該向法庭援引案例，說明法庭就不同的受傷類別的PSLA賠償水平所作出的最新指引，以供參考之用，無論案件本身所涉及的傷勢是否到達「嚴重」的類別。再者，法官也會考慮引用的案例判案日期與他本人判案日期期間，是否因通貨膨脹或其他社會整體經濟因素而令賠償金額須作適切的調整。

24.  在原審及本上訴過程中，徐大律師都沒有援引這方面的案例。無論如何，從第16段提及2012的案例可見，2006年至2010年及至2012年PSLA賠償金額肯定有一些升幅。

25.  無可否認，相比上文第16段提及的案例(這些案件中PSLA賠償為$300,000) 及 Ho Man Fong (Suffiad法官在2005年判決原告可得$250,000 PSLA賠償)，原告人的傷勢及受影響程度都較輕。但是在整體的比較下，特别考慮到原告人因傷受身體上及精神上的困擾，本庭認為$180,000的PSLA賠償在本案案情下是低於合理範圍的水平，以致本庭必須干預。因此本庭撤銷李法官就PSLA金額的判決，並以$230,000作為給予原告人的PSLA賠償。

26.  至於收入的損失，李法官只是按病假證明的日數（即至2008年底）計算審前收入損失。但按原告人精神科專家陳醫生2009年8月的意見，原告人仍須等1至2年才能返回勞工市場。在聯合精神科專家報告第62段，陳醫生說：

「62 Employability: She does not have many options for jobs due to her age and level of education. She could resume her previous job if her mood condition was significantly improved and the physical symptoms were relieved. If further treatments are successful, she can be expected to return to her pre-injury job within 1 to 2 years. However, she might need to start with a lighter job assignment and a shorter duration of work at beginning.」

27.  被告人的精神科專家鍾醫生引述骨科醫生的意見認為原告人可於2006年年底回復工作。他又指出若原告人於2006年年底回復工作，她的精神問題不會因失業發展至這麼嚴重，他並且認為原告人的精神狀況經己改善至可回復工作的水平，原告人應在病假證明結束後返回工作崗位: 見聯合精神科專家報告第49.6，59，64及65段。

28.  陳醫生在聯合精神科專家報告第66至67段回應如下：

「66 Diagnosis and Prognosis: I agree with Dr Chung that the onset of the Adjustment Disorder is after the second accident. I also agree that the Adjustment Disorder has been improved. But there are residual symptoms, including the instability of mood state (evident by the findings of labile affect with episode of burst into tears during the clinical interviews), persistent self depreciation, mildly affected concentration (evident by the test performance for concentration in MMSE that she could not succeed the serial 7 subtraction test and could only succeed the reverse digit test by the aid of her fingers) and memory (evident by the observed fact that she forgot the first interview appointment at all). The residual symptoms do have impact on her employability and prognosis. I do not agree that Madam Chung has an adequate pre-morbid personality. She does not have adequate and mature coping skills all along. She has a low self esteem and a tendency of avoidance all along. She said she won’t call for ambulance in future because she was too heavy for the ambulance men to carry downstairs. She easily quit previous jobs because the children were complaining. It seemed that she could hardly think and handle problems in a constructive way. The Prognosis is worsened by the inadequate pre-morbid personality traits.

67 Employability: I agree with Dr Chung that early return to a job is beneficial to the mental condition of Madam Chung.  But I believe that her mood condition needs further improvement.  Time and gradual exposure are advisable for a person with adjustment problems to adjust to the re-employment.」

29.  在判案書第19(7) 及22段，李法官接納陳醫生就原告人精神狀況對她生活上的影響，構成5% 永久喪失部份工作能力的評核。

30.  可是在計算賠償時，李法官卻按鍾醫生的意見判決原告人應在病假證明結束後盡快重投工作。但是他沒有處理上述陳醫生對鍾醫生的具體回應。

31.  本庭認為這樣的處理並不穩妥。雖然一般來說上訴法庭不會輕易干預原審法官就證人證供彼此之間爭議的評核，可是在本議題上有其獨特的情況。原告人是否經已適宜回復工作是本案中一項十分重要的爭議，陳醫生在報告中亦提供具體理據支持他的意見。在這情況下，原審法官應該較詳細地分析及討論以交代他不接納陳醫生意見的理由，參考Zhou Cui Hao v Ting Fung Yee [1999] 3 HKC 629; Welltus Ltd v Fornton Knitting Co Ltd [2013] 5 HKC 106。

32.  按照現今很多人身傷亡案件的審理，在原審時雙方均沒有傳召專家醫生證人作供。雖然如此，原審法官仍然肩負衡量專家證供的主要責任。在一般情況下，對原審法官就證供的衡量，上訴庭應該給予適切的比重。

33.  但是在本案中基於上文提及的獨特情況，本庭必須重新衡量陳醫生及鍾醫生的證供。本庭認為雖然鍾醫生提出關於回復工作對原告人有利的大原則無可爭議，關於原告人本身獨特的狀況及她何時才適宜回復工作方面，陳醫生之分析較詳盡及可取。鍾醫生只是提出他認為原告人精神上適宜回復工作，但並沒有給予具體理由。反觀陳醫生在62和66及67段對原告人的個人狀況對回復工作的影響作了清楚的分析。

34.  本庭接納陳醫生的意見: 由報告日期(2009年8月) 起計，原告人尚須一段時間才可回復工作。陳醫生認為該段時間為1至2年。鑑於法庭另外給予工作能力損失的賠償，本庭採納較保守的意見，將這段時間訂為1年。

35.  因此，原告人的收入損失應該算至2010年8月，即總共是49月，金額如下：

$5,080 x 49 月x 105% (MPF)= $261,366

36.  2010年8月以後，原告人應適宜回復工作，但法庭會考慮她復工後仍會因她的身體和精神狀況以致她在找尋工作或在工作上遇上困難而給予工作能力的損失賠償。李法官按徐大律師陳詞給予原告人等同3個月工資的賠償。本庭考慮原告人的年齡、學歷、案發前工作性質及陳醫生描述她的個人情況，認為她失業或被解僱的可能性比普通人高，因此以3個月工資作這方面的賠償也是太輕，屬嚴重錯誤的估計。

37.  本庭判定原告人工作能力的損失賠償應該以8個月工資作為計算：

$5,080 x 8 x 105% = $42,672

38.  基於上述理由，本庭認為上訴人應得賠償如下：

痛苦、苦楚及失去生活情趣(PSLA)	$230,000.00
收入損失	$261,366.00
工作能力的損失	$42,672.00
特別損害賠償	$11,079.20
總計：	$545,117.20
減：僱員補償金額	($145,003.07)
合共：	$400,114.13

39.  本庭頒令判原告人上訴得直，被告人須支付的賠償金額改為$400,114.13。因賠償金額的增加，利息的計算亦會改變。但本庭未曾聽取利息方面的陳詞，也不清楚上訴前被告人支付原審判決應否對利息的運算有影響。本庭指示原告人及被告人於14天內向法庭存檔利息的陳詞，其後本庭將以書面判決。

40.  本庭並且頒令被告人須支付原告人本上訴的訟費$2,000。