Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Speed

  • 23 Oct 2007

    WONG KIN FAN v. FOK YUE MING

    Citation
    WONG KIN FAN v. FOK YUE MING
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI1207/2006

    Although the defendant was driving within the speed limit and took some precaution, he was negligent for failing to give timely audible warning (horn) or take further evasive action when the possibility of the plaintiff stepping into the road was reasonably apparent; the plaintiff was substantially at fault (assessed at 2/3) and damages of HK$120,000 are reduced to HK$40,000 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.

  • 1 Feb 1991

    LUI KWAN v. CHEUNG HON KAU AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    LUI KWAN v. CHEUNG HON KAU AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA4672/1987

    The driver was negligent by travelling at an unsafe/excessive speed in wet, steep conditions approaching a junction with foreseeable sudden traffic (including a fire station and turning vehicles); skidding and the emergency did not negate negligence or justify invocation of res ipsa loquitur; the owner is vicariously liable for the driver's negligence.

  • 8 Sept 1986

    MOK WAI LEUNG v. THE QUEEN

    Citation
    MOK WAI LEUNG v. THE QUEEN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA892/1986

    The conviction was upheld because on the whole of the evidence the magistrate was entitled to find the appellant failed to keep a proper look-out and was driving too fast in the circumstances; the police officer had given directions to stop which the appellant did not see, and the factual findings including the skid mark supported the conclusion of careless driving.