Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pedestrian crossing

Legal area

Court

7 Feb 2025

HKSAR v. TAM TAK KWAN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1058
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA315/2024

On rehearing the recorded video evidence showed the taxi started to move on amber-with-red and struck a pedestrian who was already in the crossing; the driver failed to keep a proper lookout and did not apply brakes until seconds after impact, conduct that on the facts fell far below that of a competent and careful driver; accordingly conviction is safe and immediate term of imprisonment of 4 months and a 2-year driving disqualification were appropriate and upheld.
23 Dec 2019

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHU WING YIN CHRISTINE

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1459
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR5/2018

The Community Service Order was wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate given the respondent drove through a red light at a pedestrian crossing at near speed, causing serious injury; an appropriate sentence would have been 12 months' imprisonment, but the Court exercised discretion to leave the original order undisturbed because the respondent had completed the Community Service Order and substantial delay had occurred between sentence and review.
22 May 2019

香港特別行政區訴張鐳輝

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1221
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA586/2018

Appeal allowed because evidence established the pedestrian stepped out suddenly against the signal at very close range and the appellant had no reasonable opportunity to foresee or avoid the collision; the trial magistrate's adverse inferences about the driver's lack of attention and waiting until the front wheel ran over an object were not supported by the evidence, and the driving was not careless.
1 Feb 2005

KOT YIK KAM v. KWOK KAM HUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

KOT YIK KAM v. KWOK KAM HUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI292/2004

On the balance of probabilities the court preferred the Plaintiff's and independent witness's evidence that the pedestrian green man was flashing in the Plaintiff's favour; the 2nd Defendant failed to observe and stop for a pedestrian and was wholly liable (with vicarious liability attaching to the 1st Defendant); contributory negligence was rejected as the Plaintiff's error was only an error of judgment without causal negligence; damages were quantified accordingly.
7 Jan 2002

Chiu Pan Mong v. Tam Tak-kong

Citation

Chiu Pan Mong v. Tam Tak-kong
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI39/2001

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant breached his duty: the judge accepted the defendant had stopped at a red light, the lorry had limited opportunity to gain speed before the collision, substantial braking occurred, and the plaintiff emerged from behind a van leaving very limited visibility; therefore defendant was not negligent and judgment entered for defendant.
25 Aug 1998

HKSAR v. KWOK MING WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. KWOK MING WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA248/1998

The conviction was upheld because the magistrate, acting within his fact‑finding role, accepted eyewitness evidence and physical evidence that the Appellant did not slow sufficiently when approaching a light‑controlled pedestrian crossing; therefore he drove at an inappropriate speed and breached the duty to take precautions even though the lights favored vehicles.
21 Oct 1983

CHAV SAU KWAI v. TSOANG YE AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAV SAU KWAI v. TSOANG YE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1474/1980

The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant had an earlier opportunity to see and avoid the pedestrian; on the agreed facts and expert evidence mechanical defects did not cause the collision, therefore no negligence was established and the plaintiff's claim fails.
28 Mar 1980

NG KAM CHOU v. CHUNG YOI CHIU AND ANTOHER

Citation

NG KAM CHOU v. CHUNG YOI CHIU AND ANTOHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA968/1978

Court found plaintiff crossed at the stud crossing and both parties were negligent; defendant driver/owner held 80% liable and plaintiff 20% contributorily negligent; damages of $12,850 special and $40,000 general awarded and reduced by 20% for contributory negligence.
9 Feb 1980

CHAN YUK LAN v. LI KAM WA AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN YUK LAN v. LI KAM WA AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2486/1978

The 1st defendant was negligent for overtaking a bus near a studded pedestrian crossing, failing to slow down, failings to keep proper lookout and to sound warning; the plaintiff was also negligent in crossing in circumstances that risked life and limbs; apportionment of blame was 60% plaintiff and 40% 1st defendant (and vicariously 2nd defendant), entitling the plaintiff to 40% of the agreed quantum ($140,000) plus costs against the defendants.
31 Jan 1980

CHU CHE PING AND OTHERS v. WONG KOU-SHEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHU CHE PING AND OTHERS v. WONG KOU-SHEE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3927/1978

On the balance of credible eyewitness evidence the first defendant drove through the pedestrian light against the deceased and, given the established defective foot-brake which he knew or ought to have known and failed to maintain, his negligence caused the death; the second defendant was vicariously and personally liable for inadequate maintenance; damages were assessed with a 14-year multiplier, public assistance set off against husband's loss, pre-trial amounts awarded interest at 4% (half rate) and no interest awarded on post-trial economic loss.