Lee Hin v King Te Yung

Court:District Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:DCCJ514/1970
Judgment Date:27 Apr 1970
DCCJ000514/1970 LEE HIN v. KING TE YUNG

DCCJ000514/1970

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 514 OF 1970.

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

Between:
LEE HIN Plaintiff
AND
KING TE YUNG Defendant

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

Coram: D. Cons, District Judge.

Date of Judgment: 27 April 1970

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This case arises from an incident that occurred at about 8.30 in the evening of 9th September last year when the plaintiff, while walking across Chater Road by Statue Square, struck, or was struck, by the defendant's car, which was then travelling along that road. The only substantial difference between the contestants is whether the plaintiff was walking slowly as he says, or running or walking quickly as the defendant alleges. As to this aspect I prefer the evidence of the plaintiff, for the defendant was inclined to hedge when pressed in cross-examination. Even so, the road at this point is straight, limited to traffic in one direction only and some 40 feet in width, excluding car-parking space on either side. I do not know if these were in fact occupied at the time of the incident. But even if they were the plaintiff, had he looked carefully and properly, could not have failed to have observed the defendant's on-coming car, either at the commencement of his crossing or during the 15 odd feet that he traversed before first coming into its path, unless the defendant's car had been travelling at an impossibly high speed. The defendant claims to have been moving at only about 30 miles per hour, and I am inclined to believe him. The length of the skid marks might indicate a higher speed for a car travelling steadily, but they are consonant with the greater momentum generated by sharp acceleration from low speed which would have been the case if the defendant had been forced, as he alleges, to slow down at pedestrain crossing some 60 feet before the point at which he applied his brakes. He likewise cannot have been keeping a proper lookout or he would in his turn have seen the plaintiff in sufficient time to have avoided the accident.

2. It was also suggested that the accident was either wholly or partly the fault of the plaintiff, in that on hearing the defendant brake sharply he turned round in a vain attempt to reach the safety of the side he had just left. It may be that had he remained...

To continue reading

Request your trial