KO MAN WO v. WOON LEE CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

KO MAN WO v. WOON LEE CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

The primary cause of the accident was the negligence of the proprietor of the 3rd defendant in improperly handling and securing the panel; although the 1st defendant had a non-delegable duty under s38A, the evidence established the 3rd defendant bore the greater share of responsibility, so apportionment of the $1.5 million balance is 90% to the 3rd defendant and 10% to the 1st defendant.

Citation
KO MAN WO v. WOON LEE CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Ko Man Wo; 1st Defendant: Woon Lee Construction Co. Ltd; 2nd Defendant: Paul Y.-ITC Transportation Ltd; 3rd Defendant: Sun Kee Transportation Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 May 2000
Case Number
HCPI1312/1996
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Judgment on Apportionment of Liability
Outcome
Judgment entered for the plaintiff; damages agreed at HKD 1,600,000; apportionment of the HKD 1,500,000 balance fixed 1st defendant 10%, 3rd defendant 90%.
Legal Topics
Apportionment of Liability, Non Delegable Duty Under Construction Safety Regulations, Causation, Expert Evidence Credibility
Source Language
EN
Personal Injury Construction Safety Negligence Occupational Safety Apportionment of Liability Non Delegable Duty Under Construction Safety Regulations Causation Expert Evidence Credibility

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

Parties

Ko Man Wo

Plaintiff

Woon Lee Construction Co. Ltd

1st Defendant

Paul Y.-ITC Transportation Ltd

2nd Defendant

Sun Kee Transportation Ltd

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Judgment on Apportionment of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What act or omission caused the precast panel to topple
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant's non-delegable duty under s38A discharged liability
  3. 3 Apportionment of liability between 1st and 3rd defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The primary cause of the accident was the negligence of the proprietor of the 3rd defendant in improperly handling and securing the panel; although the 1st defendant had a non-delegable duty under s38A, the evidence established the 3rd defendant bore the greater share of responsibility, so apportionment of the $1.5 million balance is 90% to the 3rd defendant and 10% to the 1st defendant.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for the plaintiff; damages agreed at HKD 1,600,000; apportionment of the HKD 1,500,000 balance fixed 1st defendant 10%, 3rd defendant 90%.

Orders

  • Judgment for plaintiff in sum of HKD 1,600,000 (agreed)
  • Apportionment of HKD 1,500,000 balance: 1st defendant responsible for 10% and 3rd defendant responsible for 90%