Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Lau Wai Lam v Wong Lok Piu

Judgment Cited authorities 3 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date17 April 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] HKDC 445
Judgement NumberDCPI2598/2016
CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Subject MatterPersonal Injuries Action
DCPI1218/2016 WONG KA LAI v. LAU WAI LAM AND ANOTHER

DCPI 1218/2016 & DCPI 2598/2016

(Heard Together)

[2019] HKDC 445

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 1218 OF 2016

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

BETWEEN
WONG KA LAI Plaintiff
and
LAU WAI LAM 1st Defendant
WONG LOK PIU 2nd Defendant

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

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 2598 OF 2016

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

BETWEEN
LAU WAI LAM（劉偉林） Plaintiff
and
WONG LOK PIU（王樂彪） Defendant

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

Before: Deputy District Judge K. C. Hui in Court
Dates of Hearing: 18-21 December 2018
Date of Judgment: 17 April 2019

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

JUDGMENT

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

INTRODUCTION

1. These two personal injuries actions arise out of the same motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30 January 2014 (the “Accident”). By the Order of Master S H Lee dated 21 May 2018, these two actions were ordered to be tried together, but the trial for DCPI 2598/2016 will be on liability only.

2. The plaintiff in DCPI 1218/2016 (“P”) was born on 26 November 1980. At the time of the Accident, she was 33 years old. The Accident happened on 30 January 2014 at about 11:40 pm at an Eastbound lane at the Island Eastern Corridor.

3. At the time of the Accident:-

(a) P was a pillion passenger on a motorcycle with registration number PM8481 (the “MC”) driven by the 1st defendant in DCPI 1218/2016 (“D1”).

(b) The 2nd defendant in DCPI 1218/2016 (“D2”) was driving a light goods vehicle with registration number LB4132 (the “LGV”). The LGV was a 5.5 tonnes Izusu.

4. The MC and the LGV collided near lamppost 48389 at the Island Eastern Corridor.

(A) P and D1’s case

5. It is P’s and D1’s case that before the Accident occurred, the MC was travelling along the right-most Eastbound lane at the Island Eastern Corridor (the “Fast Lane”), and the LGV was travelling along the 2nd lane from the right (the “Slow Lane”), ie the lane to the left of the Fast Lane.

6. When the MC approached near lamppost 48389, the LGV approached from the Slow Lane and cut into the Fast Lane.

7. D1 braked the MC immediately. At this point, there is a slight difference between P’s evidence and D1’s evidence. P’s evidence is that after the MC braked, it wobbled and as a result, P fell to the ground and became unconscious. According to P’s oral evidence, she fell to the ground before any collision. However, according to D1’s evidence, he tried to brake the MC but could not prevent the MC from colliding with the right rear side of the LGV as it cut into the Fast Lane. The MC was then hooked onto the LGV, at which point P fell from the MC to the ground. As for him, D1’s evidence is that he and the MC was dragged by the LGV for about 5 seconds before they fell to the ground.

8. According to D1, the LGV continued to travel for some distance after the collision before stopping.

(B) D2’s case

9. D2’s case is that before the Accident, he drove the LGV from Chai Wan to Central. At all times on the Island Eastern Corridor, he was travelling along the Fast Lane. At the time of the Accident he looked around and to the front and back of the LGV and did not see any vehicles. D2 then heard a “bang” noise, and he slowed down the LGV and turned on the hazard warning lights, until it came to a complete halt.

10. D2 does not dispute that the MC collided with the LGV, and that the right rear side of the LGV was damaged. But D2’s case is that he did not cut any lanes in the manner as described by P. He said that if he indeed cut from the Slow Lane to the Fast Lane, the right middle part, instead of the right rear part, of the LGV would be damaged.

(C) The claims

11. P claims that both D1 and D2 were negligent in driving and handling their respective vehicles, and commenced DCPI 1218/2016 to claim compensation for personal injuries. Both D1 and D2 deny that they were negligent.

12. D1 then commenced DCPI 2598/2016 against D2 for driving the LGV negligently, claiming damages for personal injuries. D2 denies that he was negligent.

(D) Issues for trial

13. In view of the above factual background, I will determine the following issues in this judgment:-

(a) First, whether D1 and/or D2 were negligent in driving their respective vehicles at the time of the Accident. Logically, my findings on this issue will determine the liability of both actions:-

(i) If I find that none of D1 and D2 were negligent, then both actions ought to be dismissed.

(ii) If I find that only D1 was negligent, I ought to enter judgment against D1, but dismiss the claim against D2, in DCPI 1218/2016. The claim in DCPI 2598/2016 also ought to be dismissed.

(iii) If I find that only D2 was negligent, I ought to enter judgment against D2, but dismiss the claim against D1, in DCPI 1218/2016. I also ought to enter judgment against D2 in DCPI 2598/2016.

(iv) If I find that both D1 and D2 are negligent, I ought to enter judgment against D1 and D2 in DCPI 1218/2016, possibly with apportionment of their respective liabilities. I also ought to enter judgment against D2 in DCPI 2598/2016 with the appropriate reduction of liability.

(b) Second, whether the injuries sustained by P were caused by the negligence of D1 and/or D2.

(c) Third, if I enter judgment in favour of P in DCPI 1218/2016, I need to assess the damages payable to P.

14. Since DCPI 2598/2016 is a split trial, if I enter judgment against D2 in DCPI 2598/2016, I will direct the quantum of damages to be assessed.

LIABILITY: WERE D1/D2 NEGLIGENT?

15. The parties’ respective cases have already been briefly outlined above.

16. To recall, P and D1’s case is that the MC was driving along the Fast Lane, while the LGV was driving along to Slow Lane. At the time of the Accident the LGV was cutting from the Slow Lane into the Fast Lane. The implication of these alleged facts is that the LGV suddenly cut into the Fast Lane without realizing that the MC was there. As the LGV cut into the Fast Lane suddenly, there was not enough time or distance for the MC to brake in order to avoid a collision. This indeed is D1’s complaint against D2.

17. On the other hand, D2’s case is that at all times, he was driving the LGV along the Fast Lane until he heard the MC collided with the rear part of the LGV. The implication of these alleged facts is that D1 was driving the MC too fast, approached the LGV at the Fast Lane from behind, and collided with the rear part of the LGV.

(A) Did the LGV cut from the Slow Lane to the Fast Lane?

18. It is not disputed that after the Accident, the position of the LGV was at the Fast Lane. Its right-rear part was damaged, including the right taillights.

19. Therefore, the LGV was either travelling along the Fast Lane at all material times (as D2 contends), or it did cut from the Slow Lane to the Fast Lane some time before and during the Accident (as P and D1 contend). I will first resolve this factual dispute, as my findings in this regard have important implications on the issue of liability.

20. P stated in her Witness Statement that at the time of the Accident, the MC was travelling along the Fast Lane. When the MC approached near lamppost 48389, she noticed the LGV travelling along the Slow Lane, on her left. The LGV then started to cut from the Slow Lane to the Left Lane.

21. During D1’s cross-examination, P confirmed again that she was sure that the MC was all along travelling on the Fast Lane, and when she first saw the LGV, it was travelling along the Slow Lane. D2 did not put to her during cross-examination that the LGV was not travelling on the Slow Lane at the time of the Accident. Instead, the cross-examination focused on whether D1 was driving the MC too fast.

22. As for D1’s oral evidence given during cross-examination by D2, he said that he was driving the MC at a speed of 70 km/h at the time of the Accident. Again, it was not put to him by D2 that the LGV was not travelling on the Slow Lane at the time of the Accident. The focus of the cross-examination was again on whether D1 was driving considerably faster than the speed limit. Given P’s case as stated above, P understandably did not challenge the fact that the LGV was travelling along the Slow Lane when her counsel cross-examined D1.

23. Both P’s and D1’s evidence that the LGV was travelling along the Slow Lane while the MC was travelling along the Fast Lane shortly before and/or at the time of the Accident was unshaken. Moreover, on this issue, P is a relatively neutral party. P sues both D1 and D2 for negligence, and has no reason to give evidence in favour of one defendant over the other.

24. Turing to D2’s evidence, he stated in his witness statement that he was all along travelling along the Fast Lane. He explained that he chose to drive on the Fast Lane as he could arrive at his destination sooner and directly, and he could see the bend in the front and the road condition clearly. At the material time, he did look around the surroundings and the traffic condition in his front and back, but did not see any vehicles, until he heard a “bang”, ie when the MC collided with the rear of his LGV.

25. I find that there are a number of unsatisfactory aspects regarding D2’s evidence:-

(a) First, during cross-examination by D1, D2 admitted that when a vehicle approaches the LGV from behind, he would be able to see that vehicle. In the present case, if the LGV was all along travelling along the Fast Lane, and the MC approached the LGV from behind, D2 should be able to see the MC approaching the LGV. Yet, D2’s evidence is that despite checking for the road conditions around the LGV, he did not see any...

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