4 Jun 2002
The conviction was quashed because the learned Magistrate failed to make the decisive factual finding—whether the Appellant's car was on the inner or outer lane prior to collision—so there was no sufficient factual basis to support a finding of careless driving, rendering the conviction unsafe.
3 Aug 1983
On the balance of probabilities the court preferred the taxi driver’s account and found (1) the Mercedes driver’s emergency swerve and braking were reasonable responses to an imminent collision with a cyclist and were not negligent; (2) the taxi driver was not negligent having reacted to the same emergency and stopped safely; (3) the driver of Vehicle 3 (4th Defendant) was negligent (careless driving conviction supported this) and his collision with Vehicle 2 caused the resultant damage to Vehicles 1 and 2, so liability lies with the 3rd and 4th Defendants to both Plaintiff and 1st/2nd Defend…
7 Feb 1980
The driver (1st Defendant) was negligent in reversing the large lorry without effective observation or warning (no horn sounded, excessive speed for reversing, failure to note nearby bus stop) and that negligence caused the deceased's death; the owner (2nd Defendant) is vicariously liable; the deceased was 25% contributorily negligent; damages assessed and reduced by 25% producing judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of HK$308,514.
25 Apr 1977
The court found the 1st defendant negligent for driving too near the kerb and failing to give sufficient warning or reduce speed, and apportioned liability 75% to the 1st defendant and 25% to the injured girl for contributory negligence; the Attorney General is vicariously liable for the 1st defendant’s negligence; damages were assessed at 75% of the agreed $60,000 quantum (i.e. $45,000).