Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Inference of negligence

Legal area

Court

20 Nov 2007

HKSAR v. SHEN JESSIE

Citation

HKSAR v. SHEN JESSIE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA949/2007

On the facts—appellant's vehicle struck the rear of a vehicle that was stationary or nearly stopped at a traffic signal in heavy traffic, with no evidence of sudden braking or alternative cause—the magistrate was entitled to find the appellant failed to keep proper distance and was not paying sufficient attention; that finding satisfied the elements of careless driving under s38(1) and sustained the conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The magistrate did not rely on res ipsa loquitur.
20 Feb 1997

R. v. CHEUNG SHUK CHING

Citation

R. v. CHEUNG SHUK CHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1221/1996

Because the magistrate was entitled to accept the eyewitness evidence that the appellant was travelling at about 40-45 km/h past a school with children and partly parked vehicles, that speed constituted 'high speed' in the circumstances and the collision with a stationary vehicle supported an inference of carelessness; there was no legal or factual error warranting appellate interference.
17 Jul 1992

SO FAT v. KEN ON CONCRETE CO. LTD.

Citation

SO FAT v. KEN ON CONCRETE CO. LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV193/1991

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred as a matter of law in apportioning liability 50% where the evidence was equally consistent with the plaintiff's own failure to take care and with defendant's alleged negligence; where the evidential balance is even the plaintiff fails to prove the defendant's negligence and the claim must be dismissed. The appeal was allowed and judgment entered for the defendant.
25 Oct 1985

WU KAM WING v. THE KOWLOON MOTOR BUS CO.(1933) LTD.AND ANOTHER

Citation

WU KAM WING v. THE KOWLOON MOTOR BUS CO.(1933) LTD.AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV79/1985

The Court upheld the trial judge's finding that an extraordinary lurch occurred and that the lurch caused the plaintiff's arm to be thrown out, but found insufficient evidence to support the judge's conclusion that the driver was negligently driving unreasonably close to the girders; however, the plaintiff was held contributorily negligent to the extent of 50% and the trial judge was entitled to accept re-examination evidence to find a monthly income of $3,500 for assessment of damages; appeal allowed in part on liability and dismissed on quantum.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. SHEN JESSIE

R. v. CHEUNG SHUK CHING

SO FAT v. KEN ON CONCRETE CO. LTD.

WU KAM WING v. THE KOWLOON MOTOR BUS CO.(1933) LTD.AND ANOTHER