YAN CHUI SIM v. PAUL Y. ITC GENERAL CONTRACTORS LTD AND OTHERS

YAN CHUI SIM v. PAUL Y. ITC GENERAL CONTRACTORS LTD AND OTHERS

Judge held 1st and 2nd defendants liable for breach of non-delegable employer/occupier duty by allowing a solvent drum to be placed at a known blind corner; the 3rd defendant was negligent by exceeding the speed limit, failing to keep a proper lookout and choosing a line close to the kerb; plaintiff was 10%...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
YAN CHUI SIM v. PAUL Y. ITC GENERAL CONTRACTORS LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: YAN CHUI SIM; 1st Defendant: PAUL Y. ITC GENERAL CONTRACTORS LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: PAUL Y. ITC SERVICES LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: SHIU CHI MIN MACHIVELLI
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 September 2004
Case Number
HCPI244/2003
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Apportionment Between Wrongdoers, Non Delegable Duty of Employer, Assessment of Future Losses and Care, Effect of Criminal Conviction on Civil Onus, Interest and Costs
Source Language
en
Tort Negligence Occupiers' Liability Employment Law Road Traffic Law Damages Law Contributory Negligence Apportionment Between Wrongdoers +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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YAN CHUI SIM

Plaintiff

PAUL Y. ITC GENERAL CONTRACTORS LIMITED

1st Defendant

PAUL Y. ITC SERVICES LIMITED

2nd Defendant

SHIU CHI MIN MACHIVELLI

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants breached a non-delegable employer/occupier duty by permitting a hazardous storage arrangement at a blind corner
  2. 2 Whether the 3rd defendant was negligent in driving (speed/excess, failure to keep proper lookout, positioning on turn)
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and to what extent

Ratio Decidendi

Judge held 1st and 2nd defendants liable for breach of non-delegable employer/occupier duty by allowing a solvent drum to be placed at a known blind corner; the 3rd defendant was negligent by exceeding the speed limit, failing to keep a proper lookout and choosing a line close to the kerb; plaintiff was 10% contributorily negligent for working on the roadway rather than on the kerb; apportionment among defendants was 30% to 1st/2nd and 60% to 3rd; damages were assessed, reduced by 10% and set off against workers' compensation to yield final judgment of HKD 781,072.50.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of HKD 781072.50 after 10% reduction for contributory negligence and deduction of agreed employee's compensation
  • Costs order nisi that the defendants pay the plaintiff her costs of the action to be taxed on the High Court scale if not agreed