WILLIAM ARTHUR CAMPBELL v. IP HO KAM AND OTHERS

WILLIAM ARTHUR CAMPBELL v. IP HO KAM AND OTHERS

Judge found on facts that 1st Defendant ran the red light and was negligent and therefore liable to the Plaintiff; 2nd Defendant was not negligent because he entered on a green light and could not see the 1st Defendant until too late due to obstruction; 3rd Defendant was not vicariously liable because the taxi was hired to the 2nd Defendant and he was not acting as servant or agent of the 3rd Defendant.

Citation
WILLIAM ARTHUR CAMPBELL v. IP HO KAM AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: William Arthur Campbell; 1st Defendant: Ip Ho Kam; 2nd Defendant: Ng Sun Man; 3rd Defendant: Yau Man Investment Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 November 1998
Case Number
HCPI419/1997
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries (tort/negligence) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff against 1st Defendant; Plaintiff's claims against 2nd and 3rd Defendants dismissed.
Legal Topics
Red Light Violation, Duty to Keep Lookout, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Employer Liability for Hired Vehicles
Source Language
EN
Tort Negligence Vicarious Liability Traffic Regulation Red Light Violation Duty to Keep Lookout Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Liability +1 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Arthur Campbell

Plaintiff

Ip Ho Kam

1st Defendant

Ng Sun Man

2nd Defendant

Yau Man Investment Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries (tort/negligence) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the 1st Defendant negligent by running a red light?
  2. 2 Was the 2nd Defendant negligent in entering the intersection?
  3. 3 Is the 3rd Defendant vicariously liable for the 2nd Defendant's driving?

Ratio Decidendi

Judge found on facts that 1st Defendant ran the red light and was negligent and therefore liable to the Plaintiff; 2nd Defendant was not negligent because he entered on a green light and could not see the 1st Defendant until too late due to obstruction; 3rd Defendant was not vicariously liable because the taxi was hired to the 2nd Defendant and he was not acting as servant or agent of the 3rd Defendant.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff against 1st Defendant; Plaintiff's claims against 2nd and 3rd Defendants dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for Plaintiff against 1st Defendant for damages; amount to be assessed by Master.
  • Plaintiff's claims against 2nd and 3rd Defendants dismissed.