FONG SAI HO v. HARIFAST CO LTD AND OTHERS

FONG SAI HO v. HARIFAST CO LTD AND OTHERS

Expert reconstruction and expert opinion on seatbelt use were refused because the trial judge can, on available circumstantial and witness evidence (skid marks, damage, photos, witness statements and injury mechanics), make the necessary findings on speed, distance and seatbelt use; the proffered expert evidence would be speculative, unnecessary, risk usurping the judge's role and would add disproportionate cost.

Citation
FONG SAI HO v. HARIFAST CO LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
2nd Defendant: U WANG; 3rd Defendant: WONG HING HEI
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 March 2005
Case Number
HCPI1199/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort (road Traffic Personal Injury) / Pre Trial Review (ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence)
Outcome
Application to admit expert evidence dismissed; expert evidence not admitted and application refused.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence Admissibility, Accident Reconstruction, Seat Belt Contributory Negligence, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Tort Road Traffic Personal Injury Evidence Expert Evidence Admissibility Accident Reconstruction Seat Belt Contributory Negligence +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

U WANG

2nd Defendant

WONG HING HEI

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort (road Traffic Personal Injury) / Pre Trial Review (ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expert accident reconstruction evidence should be admitted to determine vehicle speeds and liability
  2. 2 Whether expert opinion on whether the Plaintiff was wearing a seat belt should be admitted to assess reduction of damages
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge can and should determine primary facts from available non-expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Expert reconstruction and expert opinion on seatbelt use were refused because the trial judge can, on available circumstantial and witness evidence (skid marks, damage, photos, witness statements and injury mechanics), make the necessary findings on speed, distance and seatbelt use; the proffered expert evidence would be speculative, unnecessary, risk usurping the judge's role and would add disproportionate cost.

Court Disposition

Application to admit expert evidence dismissed; expert evidence not admitted and application refused.

Orders

  • Application by 1st and 2nd Defendants to admit Professor Mackay's accident reconstruction report refused
  • Application to admit expert opinion on seat belt use (Professor Mackay and Dr Chu) refused