SATTAR K.A. v. GOODRICH TRANSPORTATION (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

SATTAR K.A. v. GOODRICH TRANSPORTATION (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

Goodrich, as the plaintiff's employer and registered owner of the vehicle, breached its duty to maintain a safe system of work and is solely liable for the plaintiff's injuries; K Line, though owing a duty to engage competent subcontractors, did not have sufficient evidence of breach and did not owe a duty to supervise Goodrich in the circumstances, therefore K Line is not liable. Damages totalling HK$236,459 awarded to plaintiff with specified interest and costs orders.

Citation
[2018] HKDC 1510
Parties
Plaintiff: Sattar K.A.; 1st Defendant: Goodrich Transportation (HK) Limited; 2nd Defendant: K Line Logistics (Hong Kong) Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 December 2018
Case Number
DCPI2105/2016
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries / Judgment (trial Concluded 4 5 Dec 2018; Judgment 21 Dec 2018)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff against 1st defendant Goodrich; 2nd defendant K Line not liable
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Vicarious Liability, Subcontractor Engagement and Supervision, Damages Assessment, Loss of Earnings, Statutory Employer Duties
Source Language
EN
Negligence Personal Injury Employment Law Occupational Safety and Health Duty of Care Vicarious Liability Subcontractor Engagement and Supervision Damages Assessment +2 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sattar K.A.

Plaintiff

Goodrich Transportation (HK) Limited

1st Defendant

K Line Logistics (Hong Kong) Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries / Judgment (trial Concluded 4 5 Dec 2018; Judgment 21 Dec 2018)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Goodrich was liable to the plaintiff as his employer
  2. 2 Whether K Line owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as employee of a subcontractor
  3. 3 Whether K Line breached any duty by failing to engage a competent subcontractor or supervise Goodrich

Ratio Decidendi

Goodrich, as the plaintiff's employer and registered owner of the vehicle, breached its duty to maintain a safe system of work and is solely liable for the plaintiff's injuries; K Line, though owing a duty to engage competent subcontractors, did not have sufficient evidence of breach and did not owe a duty to supervise Goodrich in the circumstances, therefore K Line is not liable. Damages totalling HK$236,459 awarded to plaintiff with specified interest and costs orders.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff against 1st defendant Goodrich; 2nd defendant K Line not liable

Orders

  • Award to plaintiff of HK$236,459.00
  • Interest: 2% per annum on general damages for PSLA from date of writ to date of judgment