Chow Man Fai v Cheng To Sum And Another

CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date16 January 1981
Judgement NumberDCCJ1795/1980
Subject MatterCivil Action
DCCJ001795/1980 CHOW MAN FAI v. CHENG TO SUM AND ANOTHER

DCCJ001795/1980

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 1795 OF 1980

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

BETWEEN CHOW MAN FAI (an infant) by CHOW MING YAU his father and next friend Plaintiff
and
CHENG TO SUM 1st Defendant
AIRLINE MECHANICAL COMPANY LIMITED 2nd Defendant

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

Coram: Judge de Basto. Q.C. in Court.

Date of Judgment: 16th January, 1981.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is a claim for damages by an infant plaintiff who suffered injuries in a collision with a car driven by the 1st defendant.

2. When the plaintiff, then about 11 years' old, at about 7.50 a.m. on the 3rd June, 1978 was on his way to school, he realized that he had forgotten to bring his water colours with him. He decided to go back home to get them. School started at 8 a.m. He intended to return home by crossing King's Road from south to north. The place he intended to cross was controlled by pedestrian and traffic lights. According to the plaintiff, seeing the light was in his favour, he began to cross King's Road. There was no one in front of him. When he reached the centre of the Road (which appears to have been a wide road at this point) he paid no attention to the pedestrian light on the other side of the road. He said he "assumed" that light would still be in his favour. When he was at the Queen Mary Hospital that came day he told a police officer that he took "no notice" of the pedestrian light on the other side of the road. The plaintiff was asked whether he was in "a great hurry" to get his water colours on the day of the accident and he replied in the affirmative. He was then asked whether that was the reason he did not take any notice of traffic on the road and, again, he replied "yes". It was put to him that, when he reached the central refuge in the middle of the road, if he had looked at the pedestrian light at that stage he would have seen the pedestrian light was red and that the traffic on that side of the road was already in motion. To these suggestions he answered, "I don't know."

3. After the plaintiff had been knocked down by the car driven by the 1st defendant, the plaintiff said be remembered the 1st defendant and two policemen immediately coming to his aid. Prior to the accident he had not seen the two policemen who, the 1st defendant testified, were standing on the north side of the road presumably preparatory to crossing the road. The plaintiff was...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT