RASHAD MUHAMMAD v. GURUNG AMRIT SINGH t/a FEWA CO AND ANOTHER

RASHAD MUHAMMAD v. GURUNG AMRIT SINGH t/a FEWA CO AND ANOTHER

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff's own negligent conduct in wilfully absenting himself during loading and then manipulating the chock/frame caused the injury; the defendants had taken reasonable precautions and were not negligent or in breach of duty; accordingly the plaintiff...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RASHAD MUHAMMAD v. GURUNG AMRIT SINGH t/a FEWA CO AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Rashad Muhammad; 1st Defendant: Gurung Amrit Singh trading as FEWA Company; 2nd Defendant: Link 200 Joint Venture
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 July 2010
Case Number
HCPI531/2009
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; judgment for the defendants.
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty, Causation, Foreseeability, Contributory Negligence, Quantum of Damages, Credibility of Witness
Source Language
en
Tort Personal Injury Employer's Liability Negligence Workers' Compensation Evidence (credibility) Breach of Duty Causation +4 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rashad Muhammad

Plaintiff

Gurung Amrit Singh trading as FEWA Company

1st Defendant

Link 200 Joint Venture

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant (employer) was negligent or breached duty of care to employee
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd defendant (principal contractor) breached statutory duty of care
  3. 3 Causation and mechanism of the plaintiff's injury

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff's own negligent conduct in wilfully absenting himself during loading and then manipulating the chock/frame caused the injury; the defendants had taken reasonable precautions and were not negligent or in breach of duty; accordingly the plaintiff failed to prove liability and the claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; judgment for the defendants.

Orders

  • Costs of the defendants, as taxed or agreed, to be paid by the plaintiff.
  • Costs order to be an order nisi with liberty for either party to restore for argument on notice within 14 days of judgment.