TSANG KWONG MAN v. CHIU WING CHUEN

HCPI 89/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 89 OF 2006

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

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

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

D E C I S I O N

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

1.  The case has been referred to me on Pre-Trial Review to decide on whether leave should be granted for the respective orthopaedic and neurological experts to give oral evidence at the trial.

2.  This is a simple running down case.  The Defendant was driving his taxi and he knocked down the Plaintiff at a  pedestrian crossing.  The Defendant has pleaded guilty to careless driving before a Magistrate.  What is of dispute is the state of the Plaintiff’s knee as well as his mental condition as affecting his return to work also as a taxi-driver.

3.  The two orthopaedic experts, Dr S K Chan for the Plaintiff and Dr K M Poon for the Defendant had different opinions on the MRI of the  knee.  Dr Chan said it was an accident or trauma caused injury because of lack of similar degeneration on other facets of the knee joint as well as on the opposite knee.  Dr Poon thought it was a mild pre-existing degeneration because of uniform thinning and no cartilage injury shown on the MRI. 

4.  Mr Woo, for the Plaintiff, has diligently listed out all the minute differences of opinion of the two doctors.  Such difference could not be resolved on paper, but he nevertheless agreed that the knee’s degeneration (however caused) was mild as objectively observable by both the doctors.  It really depends on the Plaintiff’s evidence that he could not bend his knee and drive the taxi anymore and this is a matter more of the credibility of the Plaintiff.

5.  On the psychiatric side, the Plaintiff said he had temporarily loss of consciousness after the accident before the ambulance arrived.  Dr Robert Ho, for the Plaintiff, assessed the Plaintiff to have suffered from mild mental impairment affecting concentration in driving taxi.  Dr Yu Yuk-ling, for the Defendant, queried the Plaintiff’s loss of consciousness as the first A&E report stated the Plaintiff was fully conscious with full Glasgow Coma Scale score upon admission.  Dr Yu queried the Plaintiff’s inconsistency in describing the duration of loss of consciousness, and he said that in any event, a half hour post-traumatic amnesia would only lead to very mild mental state impairment, citing an article in support.  Dr Yu nevertheless said the Plaintiff’s resumption of driving might be mildly impaired, and he could take up other manual work.

6.  Dr Ho commented that Dr Yu’s opinion of linking the period of loss of consciousness with the resulting impairment as simplistic and outdated, however without citing any medical literature.

7.  Again, the resolution of the Plaintiff mental state impairment depended on whether he did lose consciousness, and whether his loss of concentration affected driving.  Those are for the trial judge.

8.  I have generously allocated 3 days for the case.  Depending on the view of the trial judge, the two neurological experts may be called to give oral evidence, but I will not grant leave at this stage, and they should be advised to be on standby in the clinic during the trial period and the matter could be decided by the trial judge if need be.

9.  In the premises, I will set the case down in the Running List with 3 days reserved.

10.  Costs of today’s application be in the cause.