|
HCA000823/1983
1983 No. 823
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
HIGH COURT
___________
BETWEEN
|
LIANG YUH JEN |
Plaintiff |
|
and
|
|
|
KWAN KAM LIN |
1st Defendant |
|
TANG PO KUEN |
2nd Defendant |
Coram : Master Boa in Chambers
Date of Judgment: 15th August 1984
__________________________
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES
__________________________
1. On or about 9th June 1981 the plaintiff then aged 48 was struck and knocked over by a motor car owned by the second defendant and driven by the first defendant. As a result she sustained extensive injuries the salient of which were:-
|
(a) |
compound fracture of right knee; |
|
(b) |
compound fracture of left ankle; |
|
(c) |
comminuted fracture of left tibia; |
|
(d) |
contusion of right wrist and hand; |
|
(e) |
fracture of left navicular and metatarsals; |
|
(f) |
abdominal pain and intra-abdominal bleeding. |
2. As a result of these injuries the plaintiff was in hospital for 205 days and attended hospital as an out-patient for treatment on two occasions.
3. The detailed medical evidence presented written and orally by Dr R.G. Wedderburn described, inter alia, the degree of pain and discomfort suffered by the plaintiff and alluded also to the abdominal obstruction which developed while she was in hospital being treated for the injuries and which in the opinion of Dr Wedderburn was directly attributable to the accident.
4. Dr Wedderburn expressed the view that the plaintiff had about 3/8th of an inch shortening of the right leg and 5/8th of an inch of the left leg and she had limited capacity to bend her knee. From an 18% impairment of the right leg and from loss of knee joint movement there was 7% impairment of the whole man. From loss of foot movement at the left ankle the plaintiff had 12% impairment of the leg which represented 5% impairment of the whole man and in addition she had 3% impairment of the whole man from shortening of both legs. Her total impairment therefore was 15% of the whole man.
5. Apart from the pain and suffering naturally attendant upon the injuries described, the doctor expressed the view that osteoarthritis although slower than usual to develop in the case of the plaintiff, would visit her in due course and increase her impairment to 20% by the age of 60 and 25% by the age of 70.
6. The majority of the heads of claim in this case were not in dispute. I took into account all relevant factors in considering the quantum of damages. This was a case where the plaintiff was an active and healthy factory worker prior to the accident. She handled the packing of shirts in a clothing factory and worked 26 days of the month on a piecework basis. Her income therefore depended on her output but she was from the evidence a steady worker with a fairly consistent pattern of income. From her evidence and from that of the doctor, there was no question of her being able to resume any form of work except possibly a sedentary type of home industry which would earn her a negligible income. She had 3 children, two of them adult and one at school. She had made surprisingly good recovery considering the multiplicity and extent of her injuries but her activities social and domestic were considerably impaired and her employment prospects diminished to the extent described.
7. I assess the plaintiff's damages as follows:-
|
(a) |
Hospital charges |
$1,020.00
|
|
(b) |
nourishing food |
$2,000.00
|
|
(c) |
travelling expenses for hospital visits by family |
$600.00
|
|
(d) |
out-patient hospital charges |
$12.00
|
|
(e) |
Husband's loss of earnings at $150 per day for 20 days |
$3,000.00
|
|
(f) |
walking stick |
$30.00
|
|
(g) |
false teeth |
$700.00
|
|
(h) |
clothing, shoes and lunch box damaged beyond repair |
$96.00
|
|
(i) |
loss of earnings from 9.6.81 to June 1984 |
$97,200.00
|
|
|
(calculated at an average of $2,700.00 per month) |
_________
|
|
|
|
$104,658.00
|
|
|
|
========
|
| 2. |
General Damages
|
|
(a) |
Future earnings
|
|
|
|
I have considered such factors as inflation and the attempts of the Plaintiff to find employment since her accident. She impressed me as a purposeful and industrious woman who would in all probability have worked on to the age of 65 or thereby. She is now aged 51, and I consider a multiplier of 8 to be reasonable. Her physical condition is likely to deteriorate further and employment is not a serious proposition. I shall on the evidence, adopt a multiplicand of $2,800, keeping in view the likelihood that her output would probably diminish with age. In addition, the Plaintiff claimed the loss of an expected sum of $54,000 in respect of retirement benefit. As I have noted, I consider that the Plaintiff would have worked on to receive that benefit. I allow the claim and assess it, in round figures, on the basis of her past earnings and likely future earnings, had she worked. The figure is $50,000. The sum in respect of future loss of earnings is $2,800 x 12 x 8 - a total of $268,800. |
|
|
|
|
(b) |
Pain suffering and loss of Amenities
|
|
|
Having due regard to recent awards I consider that on the scale of these awards the Plaintiff should be placed towards the upper end. The medical prognosis is not a happy one; the fact of osteoarthritis developing as a near certainty must cause anxiety to the plaintiff, and the condition itself is most debilitating. Under this head I assess damages at $100,000.
|
|
|
Special damages will attract interest at the rate of 5½% per annum from the date of the accident to the date of judgment and general damages, with the exception of future loss of earnings (for which no interest is awarded), at 2% p.a. from the date of the writ to judgment.
|
|
|
Costs are awarded to the Plaintiff, with a certificate for counsel. These will be taxed if not agreed.
|
|
|
Dated this 15th day of August 1984. |
Representation:
Appearances : Mrs Barbara Kaplan instructed by Cheung, Tong & Rosa for Plaintiff
Miss Sze Kiu instructed by Philip K.H. Wong for Defendants
|