YUEN YAN TING v. YAN YAN MOTORS LTD AND ANOTHER

YUEN YAN TING v. YAN YAN MOTORS LTD AND ANOTHER

The court found the 2nd Defendant breached his duty by failing to exercise the high degree of caution required at a passenger terminal and, on the evidence, would have been able to stop in time if driving with proper care; the 1st Defendant is vicariously liable for that breach; the infant claimant (3 years 9 months) cannot be held contributorily negligent.

Citation
YUEN YAN TING v. YAN YAN MOTORS LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (infant): Yuen Yan Ting; Next Friend: Yuen Hon Kit; 1st Defendant: Yan Yan Motors Ltd; 2nd Defendant: Lee Chi Ming
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 November 2001
Case Number
HCPI956/2000
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action (road Traffic) / Judgment on Liability Following Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff on liability against the Defendants; no contributory negligence found on the part of the infant; quantum agreed between parties subject to court approval.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Standard of Care at Passenger Terminus, Contributory Negligence (child Claimant), Assessment of Witness Credibility
Source Language
EN
Torts Negligence Personal Injury Vicarious Liability Road Traffic Law Duty of Care Standard of Care at Passenger Terminus Contributory Negligence (child Claimant) +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yuen Yan Ting

Plaintiff (infant)

Yuen Hon Kit

Next Friend

Yan Yan Motors Ltd

1st Defendant

Lee Chi Ming

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action (road Traffic) / Judgment on Liability Following Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd Defendant breached his duty of care in driving at the passenger terminal
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Defendant is vicariously liable for the 2nd Defendant's breach
  3. 3 Whether the infant Plaintiff should be held contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the 2nd Defendant breached his duty by failing to exercise the high degree of caution required at a passenger terminal and, on the evidence, would have been able to stop in time if driving with proper care; the 1st Defendant is vicariously liable for that breach; the infant claimant (3 years 9 months) cannot be held contributorily negligent.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff on liability against the Defendants; no contributory negligence found on the part of the infant; quantum agreed between parties subject to court approval.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Defendants are liable for the Plaintiff's injuries
  • No finding of contributory negligence against the Plaintiff