LEE WAI MING v. HONG KONG GUARDS LTD AND ANOTHER

LEE WAI MING v. HONG KONG GUARDS LTD AND ANOTHER

Res ipsa loquitur did not apply because the plaintiff was in actual control of the door flaps at the time of the accident; on the evidence both defendants had reasonable systems (D1 a reporting system; D2 bi‑monthly inspections and maintenance records) and there was no proven breach of duty by either defendant, therefore the plaintiff failed to prove negligence and the claims were dismissed.

Citation
LEE WAI MING v. HONG KONG GUARDS LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Defendant (employer, Security Contractor): 1st defendant (D1); 2nd Defendant (property Manager): 2nd defendant (D2)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 May 2014
Case Number
DCPI987/2012
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (negligence/occupiers Liability) / Judgment
Outcome
Claims against both defendants dismissed; judgment for defendants
Legal Topics
Res Ipsa Loquitur, Duty of Care, Employer Negligence, Occupier Liability S3 Cap 314, Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance S6, Inspection and Maintenance, Contributory Negligence
Source Language
EN
Tort Occupiers Liability Employment Law Statutory Safety Regulation Res Ipsa Loquitur Duty of Care Employer Negligence Occupier Liability S3 Cap 314 +3 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

1st defendant (D1)

1st Defendant (employer, Security Contractor)

2nd defendant (D2)

2nd Defendant (property Manager)

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury (negligence/occupiers Liability) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether D1 was negligent as employer
  2. 2 Whether D1 and/or D2 were negligent as occupiers of the premises
  3. 3 Whether res ipsa loquitur applies

Ratio Decidendi

Res ipsa loquitur did not apply because the plaintiff was in actual control of the door flaps at the time of the accident; on the evidence both defendants had reasonable systems (D1 a reporting system; D2 bi‑monthly inspections and maintenance records) and there was no proven breach of duty by either defendant, therefore the plaintiff failed to prove negligence and the claims were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claims against both defendants dismissed; judgment for defendants

Orders

  • Claims against both defendants are dismissed.
  • Costs to the defendants, to be taxed on a party/party basis, if not agreed.