CHAN SHING CHING v. HONG KONG DISTRICT SECURITY LTD AND ANOTHER

CHAN SHING CHING v. HONG KONG DISTRICT SECURITY LTD AND ANOTHER

Both defendants knew or ought to have known of the presence and ferocious character of the dog and failed to take reasonable precautions (leashing the dog, restricting access, or providing protective measures); the plaintiff did not act unreasonably and was not contributorily negligent; therefore both defendants are liable and must equally bear the award for damages and costs.

Citation
CHAN SHING CHING v. HONG KONG DISTRICT SECURITY LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Chan Shing Ching; 1st Defendant: Hong Kong District Security Limited; 2nd Defendant: Paul Y. Construction Co. Ltd.
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 June 2008
Case Number
DCPI910/2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Judgment Delivered (district Court)
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff. Defendants jointly and severally liable; equal apportionment between defendants as between themselves.
Legal Topics
Dog Bite, Workplace Injury, Premises Liability, Contributory Negligence, Loss of Earnings, Medical Expenses, Interest on Damages, Costs
Source Language
EN
Personal Injury Negligence Employer's Liability Occupiers' Liability Damages and Costs Dog Bite Workplace Injury Premises Liability +5 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan Shing Ching

Plaintiff

Hong Kong District Security Limited

1st Defendant

Paul Y. Construction Co. Ltd.

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Judgment Delivered (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were negligent in allowing a ferocious dog on site leading to plaintiff's injury
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Defendant (employer) breached duty to protect employee
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd Defendant (site controller/occupier) breached duty to prevent foreseeable harm from dog

Ratio Decidendi

Both defendants knew or ought to have known of the presence and ferocious character of the dog and failed to take reasonable precautions (leashing the dog, restricting access, or providing protective measures); the plaintiff did not act unreasonably and was not contributorily negligent; therefore both defendants are liable and must equally bear the award for damages and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff. Defendants jointly and severally liable; equal apportionment between defendants as between themselves.

Orders

  • Defendants jointly and severally to pay the Plaintiff HKD 970734.88 within 14 days from judgment (sum reflects gross award less employee's compensation received).
  • Interest: 2% p.a. on HKD 350,000 from 09/07/2005 to date of judgment.