22 Jan 2020
香港特別行政區 訴 黎潤強
- Citation
- [2020] HKCFI 929
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA391/2019
依據行車紀錄片段，前車在碰撞前最少三秒已部分移入左二線且上訴人視線暢通，路面收窄情況下合理且謹慎的駕駛者應減速；上訴人未有減速而維持均速進入收窄路段，構成不小心駕駛。原審並無在事實或法律上犯可致定罪不穩之錯誤，故駁回上訴，維持定罪及罰款。
Hong Kong Case Law
Standard of care of drivers
16 Feb 2015
香港特別行政區 訴 楊文龍
- Citation
- 香港特別行政區 訴 楊文龍
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA456/2014
The magistrate's factual finding that the appellant failed to adequately observe and yield to traffic from the right before entering and cutting into the roundabout was supported by the evidence (including the video and road markings) and was not shown to be erroneous; therefore the conviction was safe and the appeal is dismissed.
11 Jun 2003
HKSAR v. MA KUNG KIN
- Citation
- HKSAR v. MA KUNG KIN
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA147/2003
The Magistrate was entitled to find, on the combined evidence of three prosecution witnesses, the appellant's own statement and supporting photographs, that the appellant maintained a speed which was 'too fast in the circumstances' and failed to pay attention to pedestrians on the safety island, thereby breaching the duty of a reasonably prudent driver under s.38(1) Road Traffic Ordinance; that finding supports dismissal of the appeal and upholding the conviction for careless driving.
27 Jan 2000
HKSAR v. WONG KIM WAH
- Citation
- HKSAR v. WONG KIM WAH
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA918/1999
The magistrate erred in concluding that lack of care was the only inference available from the evidence; the facts could equally support that the pedestrian unexpectedly stepped into the carriageway and that the appellant's reaction within one to two seconds was not unreasonably slow, rendering the conviction unsafe and liable to be quashed.
15 Mar 1995
CHOW TAK CHUN v. WONG YUN YAU
- Citation
- CHOW TAK CHUN v. WONG YUN YAU
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCA1315/1989
On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff's undiagnosed chronic glaucoma caused him to step into the road and was the predominant cause of the accident; the defendant bore some fault for driving too fast for the circumstances, but the plaintiff's contributory negligence is assessed at 85%, substantially reducing his recoverable damages.