CHEANG KAM IAN v. HONG KONG PRIME PRINTING CO.

HCPI 143/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES LIST NO. 143 OF 1998

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. In this case the plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries sustained by him when he was delivering goods to the defendant's factory premises on 21 February 1995. The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that whilst at the defendant's factory, the plaintiff asked to use the defendant's toilet. When in the toilet which was dark, the plaintiff stepped into a container on the floor of the toilet with his right leg resulting in his right shoe and right trouser leg being soaked with some inflammable liquid which was in the container. After coming out of the toilet and when he was approaching the entrance to the defendant's office, sparks from welding works which were being carried out by a worker at the entrance to the defendant's office landed on him and set his trousers alight thereby causing injuries to the plaintiff's right leg.

Plaintiff's evidence

2. The plaintiff said in evidence that it was shortly before 2 p.m. when he made delivery of two boxes of fluorescent light tubes to the defendant's factory premises on the 19th floor of North Point Industrial Building. This was the first time he had been to those premises. As he came out of the lift on the 19th floor, there were some workers at the lift lobby pulling wires in preparation for welding works. The factory premises which occupied the whole of the 19th floor was dark at the time because it was still lunch time. He saw an office on the right side as he came out of the lift with lights on and he made his delivery in this office. A person attended him at this office and while the goods which he was delivering was being counted by that person, the plaintiff asked to go to the toilet. The way was pointed out to him by this person and he had to walk through a long passageway through the factory premises to get to the toilet. This passageway was dark as the lights had been turned off, but he could still see his way.

3. When the plaintiff got to the toilet, he found the door open and the toilet was dark inside. He walked into the toilet and immediately found that his right foot had stepped into a container like a moon-cake box which was on the floor. His evidence was that the whole of his right foot had stepped into this container and liquid in the container had soaked up his right shoe and his right trouser leg up to a height of some 8 inches. He then extricated his leg from this container, and after making use of the toilet, he returned to the office. The purpose for returning to the office, according to the plaintiff, was to collect the invoice which needed to be chopped by the defendant to acknowledge receipt of the goods delivered.

4. When the plaintiff arrived back at the office from the toilet, the person who had attended him was still counting the goods. Since he still had to wait for the person to finish counting the goods and then to chop the invoice, the plaintiff decided to step outside of the office to wait. When waiting outside of the office, he took out a cigarette intending to smoke it, but before he could take out his lighter, his right trouser leg caught fire. At the time his trousers caught fire, he did not pay attention and therefore could not say whether there was anyone doing any welding works in the vicinity. There was a distance of about 12 feet from the entrance of the office to the lifts. The plaintiff was also unable to see any sparks from any welding works at the time his trousers caught fire. He could not say what had caused the fire to his trousers. The fire was then put out by a worker from the defendant using a fire extinguisher. A report was then made to the police and shortly afterwards, policemen, firemen and ambulance men came to the scene. The plaintiff had suffered burns to his right leg in the calf region which were attended to by the ambulance men at the scene, and the plaintiff was then taken to and later admitted to the Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital.

5. Under cross-examination, the plaintiff denied that there was any conversation between the person attending him after he had returned to the office from the toilet concerning the liquid which had soaked onto his right trouser leg. The plaintiff also denied that that person had warned him about the liquid being inflammable liquid which had soaked his right trouser leg. The plaintiff agreed that when police and firemen attended the scene after the report was made, they had asked him a number of questions but said that he was unable to remember what he had told the police and the firemen apart from telling them that he felt painful.

Defence evidence

6. The evidence for the defence came mainly from the defendant's Managing Director, Mr Grandy Lui (DW7). His evidence differed from that of the plaintiff in many aspects. He said in evidence that on the day in question, he had gone out to lunch with another worker in the office, Pauline Lam, who was also a minor shareholder of the defendant company and also a relative of his. They had returned to the office from lunch at about 1:50 p.m. When they returned to the office, they found the plaintiff waiting outside the office because it was locked. He then opened the office and attended the plaintiff who was delivering light tubes to his company. He took delivery of the goods in two boxes and acknowledged receipt of them by signing and chopping on the invoice. He also handed over a cheque to the plaintiff which had been made out earlier in anticipation of such deliveries. After that the plaintiff asked to use the toilet and Mr Lui pointed out the way to the plaintiff. Sometime later, the plaintiff returned from the toilet and asked Mr Lui what it was that had wetted his right trouser leg. Lui then took a sniff of the plaintiff's trouser leg and realized that it was cleaning solvent (commonly called 'white petroleum' in Cantonese, that being a jargon of the trade), an inflammable liquid widely used with printing presses. Lui then asked the plaintiff why he had wandered about in the factory instead of going straight to the toilet and how he had spilled 'white petroleum' onto his trousers. The plaintiff did not answer. He then instinctively asked the plaintiff if he was a smoker. When the plaintiff said that he was, Lui warned the plaintiff saying that the plaintiff should either wash away the 'white petroleum' or allow for 15 minutes for it to vapourize before smoking or going near to any fire. Lui then went back into the office. Shortly afterwards, Lui saw the plaintiff in flames. He rushed out of the office intending to use his coat to wrap around the legs of the plaintiff to put out the flames, but because the plaintiff was jumping about, he did not succeed in doing so. Another worker then put out the fire with a fire extinguisher.

7. Grandy Lui also gave evidence that after the police and firemen had arrived at the scene, and after investigations had been carried out by the police and firemen, he had picked up the plaintiff's lighter from the ground where the plaintiff was and had asked the policemen whether that lighter ought to be kept as evidence. The policemen told him that it was not necessary and so he had disposed of the lighter by throwing it away. According to Lui, it was a common plastic lighter commonly available at supermarkets. He also said the lighter was not damaged or broken.

8. Pauline Lam (DW6) was also called as a witness by the Defence. She confirmed having gone out to lunch with Grandy Lui on the day in question and both of them returning to the office at about 1:45 or 1:50 p.m. When they returned to the office, the office was locked and a delivery boy, namely the plaintiff, was waiting to deliver certain goods. They opened the office and Grandy Lui attended to the plaintiff while she herself went to collect certain papers intending to go down to another office situated on the 2nd floor of the same building. At some stage while she was still in the office, she heard the plaintiff asking where the toilet was and Grandy Lui telling the plaintiff where the toilet was. She took some time collecting her papers from her desk. She also overheard a further conversation between Grandy Lui and the plaintiff after he returned from the toilet when the plaintiff said to Lui that his trousers had got wet. Lui then asked the plaintiff how he had got petroleum, or 'white petroleum' onto his trousers and telling the plaintiff that it was inflammable substance. She also overheard Lui telling the plaintiff to clean it off with water. However, she did not pay much attention to their conversation. After collecting her papers, she then went out to wait for a lift to go downstairs. While waiting for the lift, she saw the plaintiff outside the office entrance and thought that he was also waiting for the lift to leave the defendant's premises. At that time, she saw the plaintiff fiddling with a lighter in his hand with his fingers, but did not see him lighting the lighter. She did not see the plaintiff taking out any cigarettes either. The next thing she saw was the plaintiff's trousers on fire and she screamed. She was unable to say how this fire started.

9. The defence also called as its witness Chan Shu Choi (DW1), a fire officer who had attended the scene and who had also prepared an investigation report. In his report, the believed cause of the fire was stated to be "Vapour from spilled petroleum soaked by trousers of a worker was ignited by sparks of a gas lighter". The evidence of Mr Chan was that a report of a fire was received at 2 p.m. sharp. When the report was made, the fire had already been put out. He arrived at the defendant's premises at 2:12 p.m. When he arrived on the 19th floor, he saw the plaintiff sitting in the cargo lift lobby. He said in evidence that he had questioned the plaintiff as to how the fire started. The plaintiff then said to him that he, the plaintiff, had tipped over a can of petroleum carelessly and as a result petroleum had spilled onto his trousers. The plaintiff then went on to tell him that the fire was started by the lighter. This witness, however, did not see any lighter at the scene. He then inspected the factory premises but not the toilet. In the middle part of the factory premises, a short distance behind the main entrance, he came across a container of inflammable liquid which was on one side of a passageway next to a printing machine. The inflammable liquid was Category 5 dangerous goods. The witness drew a sketch (Exhibit D1) to illustrate where he came across this container with the inflammable liquid. He also said in evidence that he did not inspect the toilet because he had no reason to inspect the toilet, and that he did not see anyone doing welding work at the lift lobby while he was there. He further explained that the entry in his report came about because he thought the plaintiff was a worker from the defendant's factory.

10. A policeman, Chan Tao Ming, PC23651 (DW3), was also called as a witness by the defence. The relevant part of his evidence was that when he arrived at the scene he had asked the injured person, the plaintiff, as to how the fire came about. The plaintiff then told him that when he went to the toilet, he had knocked over a can spilling petroleum onto his trousers. Later, when he, the plaintiff, lit a cigarette, his trousers caught fire. This witness also said that he saw one shoe damaged by fire and that he also saw a damaged lighter. He described the lighter as a "common plastic transparent light" which was damaged in the sense that it had exploded.

11. The relevant notebook entry of this officer showed that he had proceeded to the scene at 1356 hours. It was also stated in the notebook entry that the case revealed that a 17 year old male, delivering goods to the above address, wanted to go to toilet and burnt his right leg accidentally. After investigation, the case was confirmed to be one of "person accidentally injured".

12. The defence also called evidence from Choi Chak Wing (DW2), an engineer with Votra-Hymsun Ltd. He gave evidence that on 21 February 1995, he went to repair one of the printing machines in the defendant's factory premises on the 19th floor of the North Point Industrial Building between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. that day. Between the hours of 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. that day, he went off to lunch. For his repair work, he was provided with a container containing cleaning solvent or 'white petroleum' by the defendant. Before going off to lunch, he said that the container with the 'white petroleum' was put away with all his tools inside a space in the printing machine. However, when he returned to continue his work after lunch, he found this container with the 'white petroleum' on the floor next to the machine with its lid off and some of the petroleum missing from inside the container. He also drew a sketch (Exhibit D2) showing the machine which he was repairing on that day and where the container of cleaning solvent was after he returned from lunch. It also became apparent from his evidence that for each printing machine in the factory, there would be a similar container containing cleaning solvent to be used for that particular machine. Totally, there would be at least nine such containers containing solvent in the defendant's factory.

13. Chan Yee Kan (DW5), a workman employed by Luk Sun Ironworks was also called as a witness by the defendant. His evidence was that on 21 February 1995, he carried out certain repair works at the defendant's factory premises, both on the 19th and on the 2nd floor. He first started working on the 19th floor that morning. That work on the 19th floor involved the changing of door lock of the wooden door. According to him, no welding work took place on the 19th floor. He had with him a tool bag in which, apart from the normal tools, there was also welding equipment. He said that the welding equipment was meant to be used on the 2nd floor. The work on the 19th floor was completed just before he went off to lunch at sometime after 12:00 noon according to him. When he went off to lunch, he left his tool bag, with the welding equipment inside, in a corner of the lift lobby on the 19th floor. He had intended to come back after lunch to collect his tool bag and then take it with him to the 2nd floor where the welding work was to be done. He returned after lunch at sometime after 1 p.m., according to him. When he returned, there were policemen, firemen and ambulance men on the 19th floor lift lobby. There was also a young man who had suffered burn injury there. He was prevented from taking his tool bag down to the 2nd floor pending investigation by the police and firemen. After waiting for about half an hour, he was able to take his tool bag down to the 2nd floor to continue his work. He produced an invoice of the Luk Sun Ironworks which confirmed that the work on the 19th floor on that day was to replace the hinge of the wooden door at the entrance to the passenger lifts, and another item relating to the 2nd floor was to re-weld the iron plate on the platform.

14. The defence also produced into evidence a warning poster relating to this type of cleaning solvent. The poster shows that this type of cleaning solvent is a Category 5, Class 1, Division 1 dangerous goods. It is highly inflammable with a flash point below 23(C. The poster also states that the particular risk of this substance is highly inflammable and harmful by inhalation and in contact with skin. It also states the safety precautions to be as follows : "use in well ventilated places; keep container tightly closed and in a well ventilated place; keep away from sources of ignition - no smoking; do not breath fumes/vapours/spray; avoid contact with skin; do not empty into drains; and take precautionary measures against static discharges."

Finding of fact

15. Having heard all the evidence in this case, and having seen the plaintiff in the witness box, I have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entirely frank with the court in several very material aspects.

16. Firstly, his injuries do not support his claim that his entire right foot had stepped into the container thereby soaking his right shoe and right trouser leg in the inflammable liquid. Colour photographs taken by Dr Otto Au, the medical expert called by the plaintiff, shows the burn injuries to be only on that part of his leg above the top of his socks. A clear distinct line can be seen dividing the injuries from that part of his leg covered by his socks. Indeed, when asked about this clear division shown in the photographs, Dr Au explained in evidence that since socks can be heat resistant, therefore there was no burn marks where the plaintiff's leg was covered by his socks. This evidence clearly contradicts the plaintiff's claim that his whole right leg stepped into and was immersed in the inflammable liquid in the container such that his trouser leg was soaked up to about 8 inches. If that had been the case, his socks would also have been soaked by the inflammable liquid and would have caught fire as well so that that part of his leg covered by his socks would also have been burnt.

17. That there was inflammable substance on his right trouser leg after he had returned to the office from the toilet is not disputed. Grandy Lui confirmed that much. I, however, disbelieve the version given by the plaintiff as to how that inflammable liquid got onto his trousers. A further reason which causes me to disbelieve the plaintiff's evidence in this aspect is that the container used to hold the cleaning solvent is about 8 inches in height which can be seen from the photographs produced. I am unable to see how a person walking normally would lift his foot as high as 8 inches off the ground so as to have his whole right foot stepping entirely into such a container.

18. From the evidence which is before me, it appears what happened more likely was that either on his way to or from the toilet, the plaintiff had accidentally tipped over a container containing cleaning solvent. As a result, the cleaning solvent in the container spilled out and some of it splashed onto his right trouser leg and possibly his right shoe as well. This would also account for what the plaintiff told the fire officer Chan Shu Choi and the policeman as to how the inflammable liquid got onto his trousers. However the circumstances in which this happened is not at all clear from the evidence since the plaintiff would be the only person who knows.

19. Secondly, a large part of the plaintiff's evidence was contradicted by the evidence of the fire officer and the police constable both of whose evidence I accept in general. They both gave evidence that the plaintiff told them the fire was caused by his lighter. What is clear from both their evidence is that the plaintiff never told either of them that welding works or sparks from welding works had caused the fire. Moreover, according to both of them, the plaintiff told them that the plaintiff had knocked over a can of petroleum thereby spilling petroleum onto his trousers. From the evidence before me, the only possible way in which the plaintiff could have known that it was "petroleum" was if he had been told that by Grandy Lui before the fire started. This, therefore, tends to support the version given by Grandy Lui rather than that of the plaintiff.

20. Thirdly, the plaintiff did not impress me as a witness. I say this because when the plaintiff was giving evidence, he appeared not to have any difficulty understanding counsel's questions when he was giving evidence in chief. But it was very different when it came to cross-examination. Under cross-examination, he had repeatedly asked defence counsel to repeat her question. At times, he had himself repeated entirely defence counsel's question and asked whether that was what defence counsel was asking. It gave me a distinct impression that the plaintiff was stalling for time in order to think out an answer before answering.

21. Lastly, the pleaded case of the plaintiff differs from his evidence particularly as regards how the fire started.

22. On the other hand, I find Grandy Lui and Pauline Lam to be honest witnesses doing their best to tell the court what actually happened, although at times some minor details were forgotten by them. This, I suppose, is understandable in view of the fact that some four years had passed by since the occurrence itself. I find both the fire officer and the police constable called by the defence to be basically honest witnesses doing their best to tell the truth. I can rely on their evidence with one exception, namely, that the police constable was quite mistaken about the damaged lighter.

23. As for Choi Chak Wing, the engineer with Votra-Hymsun Ltd, I have no reason to doubt his evidence is not true.

24. Finally, in respect of the witness Chan Yee Kan, I accept his evidence with the qualification that he has got his timings all wrong. However, the events which he had related would put the correct perspective on the timings which he had given since there is no great dispute as to the timings of these various events given by the plaintiff as well as the other defence witnesses. With that one qualification, I accept the evidence of Chan Yee Kan.

25. I therefore make the following findings of facts in this case :

(1) The plaintiff had tipped over a can of cleaning solvent when he was walking along the passageway (either to or from the toilet) resulting in the solvent contained inside the can spilling onto his right trouser leg.

(2) The plaintiff then returned to the office and had asked Grandy Lui what it was that had spilled onto his trousers.

(3) Grandy Lui, after taking a sniff of the substance on the plaintiff's trousers, had told the plaintiff that it was petroleum or 'white petroleum' and had at the same time warned the plaintiff that that substance was inflammable. Grandy Lui had also told the plaintiff that he should wash off the substance on his trouser leg, or alternatively to allow for some 15 minutes for the substance to vapourize and in the mean time he should not smoke or go near to any flames.

(4) Despite such warning, the plaintiff had, almost immediately after leaving the office and while still at the lift lobby, attempted to light a cigarette. In doing so, the sparks or flame from his lighter had caused his right trouser leg to be set alight thereby causing the burn injuries to his right leg.

(5) I further find that at the time the plaintiff's right trouser leg was set afire, there was no welding works going on in the vicinity of the lift lobby, nor was there any sparks from welding works which set alight the plaintiff's trouser.

Liability

26. Having disbelieved the plaintiff's version as to how the cleaning solvent got onto his trouser leg and having found as a fact that the plaintiff had tipped over a can of cleaning solvent while walking along the passageway thus causing the solvent to spill onto his trouser leg, there is no or no sufficient evidence before me as to the circumstances of that occurrence. Bearing in mind that the onus is upon the plaintiff to prove on balance the negligence of the defendant, and in the absence of any such evidence, I am unable to find, even on a balance of probability, that the defendant was negligent in causing the solvent to be spilled onto the plaintiff's trousers. Very much depends on where the can of solvent was placed when it was tipped over by the plaintiff. If it had been placed on the floor along the passageway, that may be some indication as to negligence on the part of the defendant, particularly where the passageway was dark during lunch time. On the other hand, if it had been placed in a space inside the machine as the evidence of the engineer shows, and it was tipped over in that position by the plaintiff, that may be due to the plaintiff's own carelessness. Since I am unable to make a specific finding as to how that occurrence took place, the plaintiff has failed to discharge its onus to show negligence in this respect.

27. Still on this aspect, I was referred by counsel for the plaintiff to Reg.9 of the Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Fire Precaution in Notifiable Workplace) Regulations in an attempt to show that the defendant was in breach of statutory duty even if the can of solvent was placed in a space in the machine. However, the last sentence of Reg.9(1)(b) which reads : "...The cupboard or bin shall be situated in a position where it is least likely that the inflammable substance will catch fire" clearly indicates that that regulation was designed to provide for proper storage place for inflammable liquid such that it will not easily catch fire. That is not the situation in our present case since it was not due to the improper storage of the inflammable substance which led it to being set on fire. In my view, Reg.9 does not assist the plaintiff's case at all and I am unable to say, on the present facts of this case, that the defendant was in breach of Reg.9.

28. Even if it could be shown that the defendant was negligent in some ways causing the solvent to spill onto the plaintiff's trousers, from the facts as I have found them, a proper and reasonable warning had been given by Grandy Lui to the plaintiff such that it would have reasonably ensured the plaintiff's safety after it had been found out that the solvent (or 'white petroleum' as it was called) had spilled onto the plaintiff's trousers. It was despite such warnings, and by the plaintiff's own deliberate act in attempting to light a cigarette which had cause the fire to the plaintiff's trousers resulting in the plaintiff's injuries. This, in my view, is the clearest case there can be of novus actus interveniens even if there had been initially negligence on the part of the defendant. Put another way, the conduct of this plaintiff is so wholly unreasonable and of such overwhelming impact that it obliterates the wrongdoing (if any) of the defendant.

29. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs. However, should I be wrong in my finding on liability, I go on to deal with the question of quantum.

Injuries and treatment to the plaintiff

30. The plaintiff was admitted to the Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital on 21 February 1995, the day of the accident. He was found to be suffering from a circumferential first to second degree burn on his right calf. About 5% of the total body surface area was involved. No neurovascular injury was found. Debridement of the necrotic skin was done on 23 February 1995 and the plaintiff was discharged after seven days of hospitalization. Thereafter he was treated with daily dressings at the out-patient. On 23 March 1995, the plaintiff was readmitted into hospital for management of his right leg wound because of unsatisfactory healing. He was discharged five days later. Subsequently the wound healed well and he was last seen at the hospital on 13 June 1995 with good healing and without hypertrophic scar.

31. He was later examined by Dr Arthur Chiang and Dr Danny Tsoi, both orthopaedic experts. Both experts were of the view that there was no functional loss to the plaintiff apart from some residual pain. Dr Chiang assessed his loss of earning capacity to be 5% whilst Dr Tsoi assessed it at 2%.

32. The plaintiff was also examined cosmetically by Dr Otto Au and also Dr Ian Nicolson. Both were agreed that he had some cosmetic disability as a result of the scars left behind. Dr Au assessed his cosmetic disability at 5% whereas Dr Nicholson assessed it at 2%. Whilst both Dr Au and Dr Nicholson were of the view that the scars would remain permanently, and that nothing could be done to eradicate the scars completely, Dr Au did say that the pigmentation of the scars could be decreased somewhat either by using bleaching cream or by laser treatment. According to Dr Au, the cost of treatment by using bleaching cream would be approximately $12,000 whereas the cost of laser treatment, which would be more effective, will be around $132,000. The plaintiff was granted sick leave from 21 February 1995 to 13 June 1995.

Pain, suffering and loss of amenities

33. I have been referred to a number of authorities by both the plaintiff and the defendant in relation to burn injuries. All those cases go back to the 1980's and the awards therein are not of great assistance. However, one thing is clear from those authorities, and a matter conceded by the plaintiff in the present case, that is that the injuries suffered by the plaintiff in the present case do not come within even the 'serious category' laid down in Li Ting Lam's case. My own view is that because there is no functional disability upon this plaintiff as a result of his injuries, the present case is far less serious than the 'serious category' contemplated in Li Ting Lam's case. I take into account that the scars will be permanent and that there is still some residual pain. I also take into account the fact that although the plaintiff is a male in his early 20s, he is somewhat embarrassed about these scars. All told, $200,000 would be a reasonable compensation for the plaintiff's pain, suffering and loss of amenities.

Loss of earnings

34. It is now agreed between the parties that the pretrial loss of earnings comes to $26,562.49. There is no claim by the plaintiff for future loss of earnings.

Loss of Earnings Capacity

35. Although there was no claim for loss of future earnings, the plaintiff has claimed for loss of Earnings Capacity. This undoubtedly is based on the opinion of both Dr Tsoi and Dr Chiang that there is some loss of earning capacity. However, the opinion from both those doctors were based purely from a medical point of view, due to the residual pain. In the present case the plaintiff, after his sick leave period had expired on 13 June 1995, was able to return to his pre-accident employment. He has been able to hold that employment right up to the trial. There is no indication, and certainly no evidence before me that the plaintiff, because of his injuries, is at risk of losing that employment, nor is there any evidence before me that he would be at a handicap in the labour market should he lose his present employment as a result of the injuries. In short, I am not satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case that he is entitled to claim for loss of Earnings Capacity. I have arrived at this view despite the assessments from both Dr Tsoi and Dr Chiang.

Special damages

36. The claim for special damages has now been agreed between the parties at $7,242.00.

Future treatment

37. As a result of Dr Otto Au's evidence that the pigmentation on the plaintiff's scars can be somewhat reduced either by bleaching cream or by laser treatment, the plaintiff now claims for the costs of the laser treatment. Although Dr Au's evidence was that the laser treatment is more effective than the bleaching cream, I must also take into account the rest of Dr Au's evidence which is that whatever treatment it is that the plaintiff undertakes, whether bleaching cream or laser treatment, that treatment can only reduce to a certain extent the pigmentation of the scars. It cannot entirely remove the scars or the pigmentation. In short, the scars are there permanently. Also taking into account the costs of the laser treatment being 11 times that of the bleaching cream, since neither treatment can effectively remove all the scars or the pigmentation permanently, and balancing these two considerations, I am of the view that it would not be reasonable for the plaintiff to opt for the laser treatment over the bleaching cream. The plaintiff is entitled to claim only that which is reasonable. Accordingly, I will allow the costs of the bleaching cream treatment, which is $12,000 under this head of claim.

Interest

38. Interest at 2% per annum will be awarded on the $200,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenities from the date of writ to the date of judgment. Interest at 5.75% per annum will be awarded for the pre-trial loss of earnings and special damages from the date of accident to the date of judgment.

Summary

From this total amount there will be deducted the amount of $48,000 for the employee's compensation payment, bringing the final amount to $214,969.49.