CHAN CHEUNG v. LEUNG KWOK WAI AND OTHERS

CHAN CHEUNG v. LEUNG KWOK WAI AND OTHERS

The 1st defendant breached his duty of care by undertaking a dangerous U-turn without adequate warnings or ensuring the oncoming plaintiff had stopped; the 2nd defendant is vicariously liable for the 1st; the 3rd defendant (occupier) was negligent in advising and facilitating a risky re-circulation without...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CHAN CHEUNG v. LEUNG KWOK WAI AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Chan Cheung; 1st Defendant: Leung Kwok Wai; 2nd Defendant: Wide Tech Shipping Limited; 3rd Defendant: Hongkong International Terminals Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 January 2003
Case Number
HCPI917/2001
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Liability Trial (split Trial on Liability and Quantum)
Legal Topics
U Turn Road Collision, Contributory Negligence Apportionment, Admissibility of Police Witness Statement, Duty to Warn When Undertaking Dangerous Manoeuvre, Apportionment Between Defendants
Source Language
en
Tort Negligence Occupiers' Liability Vicarious Liability Evidence (hearsay) U Turn Road Collision Contributory Negligence Apportionment Admissibility of Police Witness Statement +2 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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan Cheung

Plaintiff

Leung Kwok Wai

1st Defendant

Wide Tech Shipping Limited

2nd Defendant

Hongkong International Terminals Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Liability Trial (split Trial on Liability and Quantum)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants were negligent in causing the collision
  2. 2 Whether the 3rd defendant (occupier/operator of terminal) was negligent in advising and failing to provide adequate assistance for U-turns
  3. 3 Whether the police statement of security guard Chik Wing Pun was admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st defendant breached his duty of care by undertaking a dangerous U-turn without adequate warnings or ensuring the oncoming plaintiff had stopped; the 2nd defendant is vicariously liable for the 1st; the 3rd defendant (occupier) was negligent in advising and facilitating a risky re-circulation without sufficient staff or controls; the plaintiff was 60% contributorily negligent for failing to keep proper lookout (admitted looking for a seal), so defendants are jointly 40% liable, apportioned 20% to 1st/2nd and 20% to 3rd; the unsigned/unheard police statement of the security guard Chik Wing Pun is inadmissible as hearsay where plaintiff declined the opportunity to call the witness.