12 Nov 2010
On the facts the sudden emergence of the plaintiff from between parked vehicles was a mere possibility and the defendant was not negligent; plaintiff failed to take proper lookout and was principally at fault. Liability not proved; had liability been proved plaintiff would bear at least 75% responsibility.
23 Oct 2007
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.
15 Nov 2002
The magistrate properly drew the only reasonable inference from the cumulative circumstantial facts — that the appellant was acting as a lookout for an operating diesel detreatment plant and therefore knew of and was in possession of the dutiable commodity — and the conviction is upheld.
27 May 1988
Because the 1st Defendant was placed in a sudden emergency and acted reasonably in swerving into the outer lane, and because the 1st Appellant failed to keep a proper lookout, delayed braking and attempted a risky overtaking manoeuvre he should have anticipated, the 1st Appellant was negligent and the deputy judge's finding of liability against the appellants is upheld.
10 Jul 1968
The court held the defendant was not negligent. Given the road conditions, the presence and relative position/speed of other vehicles (bus and van), and that the defendant only saw the plaintiff after the van slowed and thereafter braked and swerved, a duty to slow further or to foresee a pedestrian emerging beyond the crossing was not established. The trial finding of negligence was unsustainable and the appeal was allowed; judgment against the defendant was set aside and judgment entered for the defendant.