Hypothetical Case: Traffic Accident Tragedy: Pedestrian Hit by Taxi in Quarry Bay, January 1, 2023

Hypothetical Case Summary : On January 1, 2023, in Taikoo Shing, Quarry Bay, a pedestrian was involved in an accident. The victim, crossing the road with a green traffic light, was hit by a taxi that failed to stop despite the red signal. The accident resulted in severe injuries to the victim. An ambulance promptly arrived within 10 minutes and transported him to Ruttonjee Hospital.

As a consequence of the accident, the victim suffered a fractured left leg, and he also incurred damage to his iPhone and glasses. He underwent surgery on his left leg during the 40-day hospitalization. The victim, a 50-year-old restaurant waiter with a decade of experience, currently earns a monthly wage of $19,800. He is married with a non-working wife and a 15-year-old son attending secondary school.

The doctor has advised that the victim will be unable to resume work as a waiter, leading to a reduced earning capacity of $16,500 per month. The accident has not only caused physical harm but also financial implications for the victim and his family.

Case Analysis:

Strengths of your case:

• Strong liability case: The green light for the pedestrian and red light for the taxi indicate potential clear fault on the taxi driver's side.
• Serious injuries: Fractured leg, surgery, and long hospitalization suggest significant pain and suffering, potentially leading to higher compensation.
• Income loss: Demonstrable reduction in earning capacity due to the injury strengthens the claim for lost wages.

Areas for further investigation: 

• Medical reports: Detailed medical records documenting the injury, treatment, and prognosis are crucial evidence.
• Police report: Details of the accident, witness statements, and any traffic violations issued will be significant.
• Employment records: Verifying income and potential future earning limitations will solidify the lost wages claim.
• Contributory negligence: While the initial case seems strong, any potential fault attributed to the victim could reduce compensation. Investigating all aspects of the accident is crucial.

Recommendations: 

• Consult a lawyer specialized in traffic accident claims: Their expertise can assess the case merits, gather evidence effectively, and negotiate with the insurance company to maximize your compensation.
• Act quickly: The 3-year time limit in Hong Kong emphasizes the importance of starting the process soon.
• Gather evidence: Collect all relevant documents like medical records, police reports, income proofs, and photos.

Potential compensation: 

• Medical expenses: Hospitalization, surgery, rehabilitation, and future medical needs.
• Lost wages: Compensation for the difference between your previous and current income, considering future earning potential.
• Pain and suffering: Compensation for physical and emotional distress due to the injuries.
• Other losses: Damaged personal belongings like the phone and glasses.

Important notes: 

• This analysis is based on limited information and does not constitute legal advice.
• No-win-no-fee arrangements are not available in Hong Kong for personal injury cases.
• Consulting a lawyer early is crucial for maximizing your chances of receiving fair compensation.

Remember, while legal fees might seem like an upfront cost, having a qualified lawyer represent you can significantly increase your chances of obtaining the full compensation you deserve.

High Court: Typographical error in a Settlement Agreement leads to questions on its enforceability

Case Summary:

張強 v. 思科系統有限公司 (Action No. 1497 of 2010)

Court: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance

Plaintiff: 張強 (ZHANG QIANG)

Defendant: 思科系統有限公司 (CISCO SYSTEMS (HK) LIMITED)

Judge: Hon K Yeung

Hearing Dates: 2-4, 8-11, and 14 October 2019

Judgment Date: 17 March 2021

1. What was the main issue in the 张强 v. 思科系统有限公司 case?

The case centered on a typographical error in a Settlement Agreement, questioning the enforceability of the agreement.

2. How did the typo affect the Settlement Agreement?

The Agreement stated a sum of “HK$64,4910.46” instead of “HK$64,491.46,” leading to a dispute over the intended amount.

3. Why did the court find the Settlement Agreement unenforceable?

 The court deemed the typo a unilateral mistake by the employer, resulting in a lack of consensus between the parties, making the agreement unenforceable.

4. What was the employee's claim against the employer?

 The employee sought the original amount stated in the Settlement Agreement and damages for wrongful termination after being summarily dismissed.

5. Why was the original Settlement Agreement amount not recoverable by the employee?

 The court found that the employee was aware of the mistake, leading to a lack of agreement on material terms and rendering the Settlement Agreement unenforceable.

6. What were the grounds for the employer's summary dismissal of the employee?

 The employer cited the employee's failure to relocate, non-compliance with instructions, refusal to answer questions, and providing unreasonable excuses for a month-long absence.

7. How did the court assess the employer's reasons for summary dismissal?

 The court found the employee's conduct constituted a repudiation of fundamental contract terms, justifying summary dismissal based on multiple serious grounds.

8. What lesson does the case offer for employers?

 Employers should exercise caution to avoid mistakes in legal documents. However, genuine mistakes may still allow recourse, as seen in this case.

9. Why do employers often choose notice termination over summary dismissal?

 Summary dismissal is a serious step, requiring strong evidence. Notice termination may be preferred to avoid lengthy legal battles and potential adverse publicity.

10. How long did the 张强 v. 思科系统有限公司 case take to conclude?

 The case, involving a summary dismissal in 2009, concluded only in 2021, illustrating that legal proceedings can be protracted.