HUANG CHANFENG v. LI YAN CHUN

DCPI 748/2023

[2025] HKDC 1767

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 748 OF 2023

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

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

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

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

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

Introduction

1.  This is the assessment of damages of the Plaintiff’s (“the P’s”) claim arising from a dog-bite incident on 28 April 2021 (“the Accident”).

The Proceedings

2.  The service of Writ of Summons and all other Court documents was effected on the Defendant (“the D”). Interlocutory judgment was obtained on 27 July 2023. The D appeared in a Checklist Review hearing on 23 August 2023 and was absent from subsequent hearings. Directions for assessment of damages and all orders were duly served on the D. Upon reading the affirmations of service filed by the P’s solicitors, I am satisfied the D is aware of the hearing of assessment of damages today. I shall proceed with assessing damages in accordance with Order 35 Rule 1 of the Rules of District Court, Cap 336H.

3.  In this assessment of damages, the P did not adduce medical expert evidence.

4.  The P has received $2,500 compensation from the D prior to this hearing.

5.  The P has been a housewife and was aged 76 at time of the Accident, and now 81. She did not take sick leave from doctors, and her claim of damages are Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenities (“PSLA”) along with other special damages.

6.  The P concedes she has no evidence to support her claim on tonic food and caring fee, upon confirmation by Mr Chou, the P withdraws both claims leaving damages on medical and travelling expenses to be assessed.

The Accident

7.  The P did not file a Statement of Claim. The facts of the Accident appeared in her witness statement filed on 22 December 2023.

8.  On the day of the Accident, the P took a morning stroll at Ku Tung, a rural area in the New Territories. The P came near to a cement factory while heading home and noticed that the factory gate was ajar. Suddenly, there were 6 to 7 dogs came sprinting from the factory toward the P and lunged at her. The P was unable to evade the dogs and had sustained injuries from dog bites.

9.  The P recalled a man who came out from the factory and assisted her in stopping the dogs from biting. This man has also reached out to the P’s daughter and called for an ambulance.

10.  The D appeared at the scene after the Accident. The P was informed by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (“AFCD”) that the D is the owner of the dogs. Subsequently, the D was charged with one count of failing to keep dogs on leash dog at a public place, contrary to section 23(1)(a) of the Rabies Ordinance, Cap 421, resulting in her conviction and was fined $3,500.

11.  It is the P’s case that her personal injuries were caused by the D's negligence and/or breach of duties as a dog owner.

Medical injuries and treatment

12.  Shortly after the Accident, the P was taken to the Accident & Emergency Department of North District Hospital (“the AED of NDH”), where a physical examination showed dog bite wounds over her right arm, right forearm and right buttock. There was no active bleeding. The P was treated and discharged on the same day with wound dressing, intramuscular anti-rabies vaccine and Panadol.

13.  On 29 April 2021, the P visited Dr. Leung Kam Fai Thomas, and the physical examination revealed the wound over her right arm, right elbow and right hip were infected. The P received another wound dressing and was given oral antibiotic. Dr. Leung treated the P on 30 April 2021, 2 May 2021, 4 May 2021 and 9 May 2021.[1]

14.  On 1 May 2021, the P went to the AED of NDH, the P mentioning residual wound pain but the doctor observed all wounds were healed progressively with no further infection. The P was further administered with antibiotic.

15.  On 5 May 2021, the P returned to the AED of NDH for follow up treatment, her wounds were all healed but were still bruised. There was no sign of secondary infection. She was initially found with acute stress. The P was given Panadol, antibiotic and Xanax[2].

16.  On 12 May 2021, in a follow up treatment with the AED of NDH, doctor observed no infection of the wounds and the P was found to be emotional stable. The P was given Ativan[3].

17.  The P was not given sick leave.

18.  Prior to the Accident, the P has maintained good health.

19.  The P is still suffering from the following symptoms which I accept:

(i)  intermittent itching on right arm, forearm and buttock;

(ii)  intermittent buttock pain;

(iii)  the above intermittent itchiness and pain will intensify when weather changes; and

(iv)  occasional nightmare and flashback of the Accident.

Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenities (“PSLA”)

20.  The Plaintiff says her injuries do not meet the “serious category” as defined in Lee Ting Nam v Leung Kam Ming [1980] HKLR 657 and claims HK$180,000 under this head. The “serious injury” category as defined in Lee Ting Lam as:-

“It covers those cases where the injury leaves a disability which mars general activities and enjoyment of life, but allows reasonable mobility to the victim, for example, the loss of limb replaced by a satisfactory artificial device, or bad fractures leaving recurrent pain”.

21.  Reading from all the medical reports, the P’s injury is nowhere close to the bottom end of “serious injury category”.

22.  The PSLA damages level at post Chan Pui Ki v Leung On [1996] 2 HKLR 401 was set out by Bharwaney J in the case of Ng Tat Kuen v Tam Che Fu & Others [2019] HKCFI 1191, HCPI 896/2013, 3 May 2019). In paragraph 95 thereof, the level of PSLA damages of the “serious category” was in the range of HK$530,000 and HK$715,000. HH Judge Andrew Li (as he then was) revised and elevated the level of PSLA damages, after considering inflation for the years in 2018, 2019 and 2020, to a range between HK$560,000 to HK$775,500 in his judgment Cheung Ka Man v Wong Yu Huen (unreported DCPI 214/2021; [2023] HKDC 370 at paragraph 118).

23.  Having in mind the range of recent updated level of PSLA damages, I take into account the following cases where the plaintiffs therein were suffering injuries from dog bite.

(i)  In a more serious case, Man Sze Wai v. Chui Woon Ho Cecilia & anor (DCPI 2222/2020, [2020] HKDC 443) HHJ KC Chan awarded PSLA of $650,000 to a plaintiff who suffered various injuries including to her face, right palm, left elbow, right breast and right anterior thigh. This plaintiff was hospitalized for 14 days and sustained residual disability on her right hand. She has to undergo plastic and psychiatric treatments. The impairment of whole person was around 20 – 25%.

(ii)  In a relatively minor case, 潘冬琼 v 黃勝發 To J awarded $500,000 to the plaintiff who suffered injuries to both her legs resulting in hospitalization of 18 days. There was residual pain in her right calf area and she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. She was assessed to have suffered from both 2% of loss of impairment of whole person and loss of earning capacity.

(iii)  There are cases where the plaintiff has experienced similar injury to the P. In Susi Yanti and Another v Chu Shiu Chuen (HCPI 1176/2000, 2 November 2001), Master de Souza (as he then was) awarded $380,000 to the plaintiff who has suffered from a dog bite incident resulting in no fewer than 19 conspicuous scars on her back of right leg, 4 unsightly scars on her left calf and 2 noticeable scars on her right upper arm. She required psychiatric help.

(iv)  The 2^nd plaintiff in Susi Yanti and Another v Chu Shiu Chuen, being a 4-year old girl was likewise a victim of the attack. She sustained 3 laceration wounds on both thighs along numerous bites and scratch marks on her thighs and left arm. She was awarded $130,000.

(v)  In cases where plaintiff suffered less injury, HHJ Wong (as she then was) in Mujiati v. Chong Wai Kwan (DCPI 424/2003) awarded the plaintiff $70,000 for scarring on her left forearm, right forearm and buttock.

24.  After considering the above authorities, the P’s injury did not fall on the most serious end. Without medical expert evidence from a medical expert to state the condition of the right forearm and buttock, I accept, by common sense, that there must be some scarring from the dog bite. The P testified she would experience some itchiness and pain over the scarred area. She could not resist scratching. Apart from that, the P has nightmare and reflections on the Accident frequently. She has also developed phobia of dogs and the area of the place of the Accident.

25.  The aftermath of the P’s injury is more compatible to the 2^nd plaintiff in Susi Yanti. I find it appropriate to award PSLA of a similar range. I am aware Susi Yanti was decided in 2001, taking into account inflation and revisions of PSLA levels in the abovementioned authorities, I agree with the Mr Chou that the P’s claim of $180,000 under this head is justified. I therefore award the P damages of PSLA in this sum.

Special Damages

26.  The P claims HK$5,000 medical expenses incurred from medical consultations with Dr. Leung and charges by NDH. The P did not keep receipts after paying charges to NDH. She testified she has been there for 5 times and has paid $180 in each visit. I take judicial notice that the costs of public hospital is $180 in the year of 2020 and accept this is the sum incurred. The medical fees paid to Dr. Leung was supported by receipts and I also accept accordingly. The total sum under this head is therefore $2,050.

27.  The P claims $3,000 travelling expenses. The P testified that she went to follow up treatments by taxi which was evidenced by receipts[4]. The total travelling expenses is $803.90 and I accept it in full.

Summary of damages assessed

28.  To conclude, I award damages to the P as follows:

(i)	PSLA	HK$	180,000.00
(ii)	Medical expenses	HK$	2,050.00
(iii)	Travelling expenses	HK$	803.90
(iv)	Less money received from D	HK$	2,500.00
		HK$180,353.90 ================

Interest

29.  The P is entitled to interest on PSLA at a rate of 2% per annum from the date of issuance of the Writ of Summons to the date of judgment and thereafter at judgment rate until payment. Interest on special damages at half the judgment rate from the date of the Accident until the judgment and thereafter at judgment rate until payment.

Costs

30.  I see nothing here to depart from the usual costs order. I make a costs order that the D do pay the P’s costs of the assessment of damages, including all costs reserved, to be taxed if not agreed. The Plaintiff’s own costs be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.