HO JAN TIM v. FONG TAK YING AND ANOTHER

HO JAN TIM v. FONG TAK YING AND ANOTHER

On the agreed facts and witness evidence the court found the plaintiff ran onto the pedestrian crossing against the pedestrian signal and the 1st defendant, driving within the speed limit and with limited opportunity to see and avoid the pedestrian, did not breach the duty of care; therefore the 1st defendant was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HO JAN TIM v. FONG TAK YING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: HO JAN TIM; 1st Defendant: FONG TAK YING; 2nd Defendant: CITYBUS LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 January 2006
Case Number
HCPI519/2004
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Trial Liability Only (split Trial)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed on liability.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Pedestrian Crossing Regulations, Causation, Contributory Negligence
Source Language
en
Tort Personal Injury Road Traffic Negligence Duty of Care Pedestrian Crossing Regulations Causation Contributory Negligence

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HO JAN TIM

Plaintiff

FONG TAK YING

1st Defendant

CITYBUS LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Trial Liability Only (split Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant breached the duty of care by failing to keep a proper lookout
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant was driving at an unsafe speed
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's act of running across the pedestrian crossing against the pedestrian signal was the sole or primary cause of the accident

Ratio Decidendi

On the agreed facts and witness evidence the court found the plaintiff ran onto the pedestrian crossing against the pedestrian signal and the 1st defendant, driving within the speed limit and with limited opportunity to see and avoid the pedestrian, did not breach the duty of care; therefore the 1st defendant was not negligent and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed on liability.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed on liability
  • Costs awarded to the defendants (order nisi) against the plaintiff