HO LAU HING v. WU MING LOK

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

Plaintiff: Mr. D Man of Messrs. C T Chan & Co.

Defendant: Mr. Li Shu Pui, instructed by Messrs So & Co.

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

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

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

1. The Plaintiff was employed at an industrial building in Yau Tong. The Defendant had adjacent premises where he kept a large dog and a small dog.

2. On 2 January this year, when the Plaintiff came out of the lift and walked towards her place of work she saw the 2 dogs unattended outside the Defendant's premises. The large dog attacked the Plaintiff and bit her on the left calf, it's teeth ripping into the calf muscle. When the Plaintiff screamed, the son of the Defendant came out his premises and pulled the dog's rear legs, causing it to bite deeper into the calf, before the dog was able to be pulled off.

3. The Plaintiff was treated first at the emergency ward of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, but then transferred to St. Teresa Hospital, where she was kept in for 8 days.

4. As a result of the attack, the Plaintiff suffered 3 wounds to her left calf. One laceration about 7.5 cm by 2.5 cm was deep into the calf muscle. The Plaintiff resumed work on 16 January.

5. The writ was issued on 26 May, and on 26 June, in default of notice of intention to defend, the Plaintiff obtained judgement for damages to be assessed.

6. At the outset of the assessment hearing, Mr. Li told me that the main dispute was as to the special damages, particularly the medical expenses.

7. The Plaintiff-gave-evidence-and was cross-examined, and no evidence was called for the Defendant.

8. Mr Man submitted that the damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity be in the sum of $25,000. Mr. Li agreed that this figure was appropriate. I consider that sum is proper and I assess damages under this head in that sum. I need say no more, therefore, about the Plaintiffs evidence about the pain she endured during the attack, and the pain and discomfort she suffered subsequently.

9. As regards special damages, various sums were claimed under the heads of travelling expenses, damage to personal belongings and loss of earnings. In evidence, some of the claims were reduced or abandoned, and the sums I award based on the evidence are set out in my award.

10. The only real dispute related to the cost of medical treatment in the sum of $45,868, being the bills for treatment at St. Teresa's hospital, and follow-up treatment by the Plaintiffs family doctor, who had also treated her at the hospital.

11. As already mentioned, the Plaintiff was initially taken to the public Queen Elizabeth hospital. The Plaintiff told me that the doctor there gave her a pill and an injection, and washed the wound. When she asked to be admitted he told her that was not necessary and that the treatment was complete. The Plaintiff said she was still bleeding and that the wounds had not been dressed. She was agitated and in great pain. She had had a family doctor, Doctor Lo, who she know practised at St. Teresa's hospital, and it was for that reason she asked to be transferred there. This was her decision.

12. Mr. Li submitted that the burden of proving that it was reasonable to go to St. Teresa was upon the Plaintiff. I accept that this is the case. In my view the Plaintiff was entirely reasonable. She was not satisfied with the treatment she had received at the public hospital. The defence had not asked for Doctor Lo to be called and his medical report had been the subject of a hearsay notice. In my view I am entitled to assume that Doctor Lo's decision to admit the Plaintiff to hospital for several days, and to ask her to come to his clinic on several occasions for follow-up treatment, was justified, which eminently demonstrates that the Plaintiff was correct in not being satisfied with what had been done at Queen Elizabeth hospital. I award the medical expenses as claimed.

Interest.

13. Interest on the special damages will be at the rate of 4.75% per annum from the date of the attack to the date of this assessment, and on the general damages at 2% per annum from the date of the Writ until assessment.

14. This is a case which should clearly have been brought in the District Court. When asked why it had not been so brought, Mr. Mau told me it was because when the writ was issued they were not in a position to assess the general damages. This is quite wrong, because the last follow up treatment was on the 23rd March and the only medical report was dated the day before that.

15. Costs of this assessment to the Plaintiff, on the District Court scale.