CAI GUOPING v. YIM HOK WING AND OTHERS

CAI GUOPING v. YIM HOK WING AND OTHERS

The court found defendants jointly and severally liable for negligence, breaches of Regulation 38(1)(b) and 38(1)(5) and occupiers' duty because panels were transported in pairs in a confined hoist and a safe system was not ensured; plaintiff was 50% contributor to the accident for failing to follow the taught...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CAI GUOPING v. YIM HOK WING AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: CAI GUOPING; 1st Defendant: YIM HOK WING (嚴學榮); 2nd Defendant: MAY’S ASIA LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: HIP HING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 February 2015
Case Number
HCPI494/2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Defendants held jointly and severally liable; contributory negligence apportioned 50% to plaintiff; assessed damages but no sum payable as employees' compensation exceeded assessed entitlement; order nisi no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Damages Assessment, Hoist/plant Safety, Statutory Breach (reg 38 Cap 59 I), Sick Leave Evidence, Set‑off of Employees' Compensation
Source Language
en
Personal Injury Negligence Occupiers Liability Construction Safety Regulations Employment Law Contributory Negligence Damages Assessment Hoist/plant Safety +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CAI GUOPING

Plaintiff

YIM HOK WING (嚴學榮)

1st Defendant

MAY’S ASIA LIMITED

2nd Defendant

HIP HING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants breached common law duty to provide safe system of work and occupiers' duty
  2. 2 Whether defendants breached Regulation 38(1)(b) and 38(1)(5) of the Construction Site (Safety) Regulations Cap 59I
  3. 3 Causation and factual account of how the panel fell

Ratio Decidendi

The court found defendants jointly and severally liable for negligence, breaches of Regulation 38(1)(b) and 38(1)(5) and occupiers' duty because panels were transported in pairs in a confined hoist and a safe system was not ensured; plaintiff was 50% contributor to the accident for failing to follow the taught method; damages were assessed (PSLA HK$250,000; pre‑trial loss HK$132,349; special and dental allowances) but after 50% reduction and set‑off of employees' compensation of HK$333,300 the compensation exceeded the claimant's entitlement resulting in no payable damages; order nisi that there be no order as to costs because of split liability.

Court Disposition

Defendants held jointly and severally liable; contributory negligence apportioned 50% to plaintiff; assessed damages but no sum payable as employees' compensation exceeded assessed entitlement; order nisi no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Defendants jointly and severally liable for plaintiff's injuries
  • Contributory negligence apportioned 50% to plaintiff