LEUNG CHI YUEN AND ANOTHER v. TSANG SHUI CHING AND ANOTHER

LEUNG CHI YUEN AND ANOTHER v. TSANG SHUI CHING AND ANOTHER

The defendant was not liable because the evidence showed he was well over on the offside, there was sufficient clearance at impact, no excessive speed, and the immediate cause of the accident was the deceased losing control and running into the carriageway in darkness without a rear light; therefore plaintiff failed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LEUNG CHI YUEN AND ANOTHER v. TSANG SHUI CHING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiffs: LEUNG CHI YUEN and LEE WUI CHUN (Administrators of the estate of LEUNG YAN CHUN, deceased); 1st Defendant: TSANG SHUI CHING; 2nd Defendant: LEE KA TIM
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 September 1971
Case Number
DCCJ327/1971
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort — Fatal Accident (negligence) / Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants; claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence, Overtaking, Use of Horn, Lighting and Visibility, Damages for Loss of Expectation of Life
Source Language
en
Torts Road Traffic Negligence Civil Procedure Duty of Care Contributory Negligence Overtaking Use of Horn +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 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LEUNG CHI YUEN and LEE WUI CHUN (Administrators of the estate of LEUNG YAN CHUN, deceased)

Plaintiffs

TSANG SHUI CHING

1st Defendant

LEE KA TIM

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort — Fatal Accident (negligence) / Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the driver was negligent in overtaking and caused the death
  2. 2 Whether the deceased was contributorily negligent
  3. 3 Whether the defendant should have sounded the horn

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was not liable because the evidence showed he was well over on the offside, there was sufficient clearance at impact, no excessive speed, and the immediate cause of the accident was the deceased losing control and running into the carriageway in darkness without a rear light; therefore plaintiff failed to prove defendant's negligent course of driving.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants; claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the defendant with costs on Scale V.
  • Plaintiff's costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Ordinance.