人身傷害賠償中已存在疾病的影響？上訴得直

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：CHAN KAM-HOI v DRAGAGES ET TRAVAUX PUBLICS - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Mortimer V-P, Wong and Le Pichon JJ - 判決日期：1998年11月11日 ### 案情摘要 原告是一名木匠，在建造香港港麗酒店期間為被告工作，先後於1988年6月25日和9月6日發生兩次意外，導致背部受傷。原告在意外前已有脊椎退化性疾病，但並無症狀。原審法官裁定被告須為意外負責，原告沒有分擔疏忽 (contributory negligence)。原審法官裁定原告的傷勢導致其一年內無法工作，之後只能從事輕型工作，但若無意外，原告的脊椎狀況也會惡化，使其在55歲前無法從事意外前的工作。原審法官因此將原告的損害賠償 (damages) 扣減45%至75%。原告不服賠償金額，提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要爭議點在於原審法官評估損害賠償時，如何處理原告已存在的脊椎退化性疾病對賠償金額的影響。上訴法院需審查原審法官在計算痛苦、傷害及喪失生活樂趣 (pain, suffering and loss of amenity)、審訊前收入損失 (pre-trial loss of earnings) 及未來收入損失 (future loss of earnings) 時的扣減百分比是否恰當，以及未來收入損失的乘數 (multiplier) 計算是否正確。 ### 判決理由 上訴法院認為，原審法官在評估損害賠償時，應將原告已存在的脊椎退化性疾病納入考量，並透過適當的百分比扣減來反映風險。雖然原審法官採用的方法原則上正確，但其對未來收入損失的75%扣減與其他賠償項目（45%）不一致，且其計算未來收入損失乘數的方式存在原則性錯誤。法院指出，當已存在的疾病可能導致傷殘和損失時，通常會透過評估一般損害賠償來考慮風險，並在未來收入損失的計算中採用較低的乘數。法院最終裁定，為使賠償評估保持一致性，應將未來收入損失的乘數調整為5年，並統一扣減45%。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法院裁定原告上訴得直，將原審判決的賠償金額從$535,383.38修訂為$825,758.38。上訴法院特別調整了未來收入損失的賠償金額，並修正了僱員補償金 (employee's compensation) 的扣減金額。上訴訟費暫定判給原告，如未能達成協議則需評定。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調在人身傷害案件中，評估損害賠償時處理已存在疾病的重要性。法院重申，在計算未來收入損失時，應根據原告的年齡、職業及已存在疾病的風險，採用適當的乘數。此外，判決指出，在不同賠償項目之間，對已存在疾病的扣減百分比應保持一致性，以確保評估的公平和合理性。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: CHAN KAM-HOI v DRAGAGES ET TRAVAUX PUBLICS - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Mortimer V-P, Wong and Le Pichon JJ - Date of Judgment: 11 November 1998 ### Factual Background The plaintiff, a carpenter, sustained back injuries in two accidents on 25 June and 6 September 1988 while working for the defendant during the construction of the Conrad Hotel. He had a pre-existing degenerative spinal condition that was asymptomatic before the accidents. The trial judge found the defendant liable and exonerated the plaintiff from contributory negligence. The judge found that the injuries disabled the plaintiff from work for one year, then limited him to light work, and that his pre-existing condition would have forced him to quit his pre-accident occupation by age 55 even without the accidents. The judge discounted damages by 45% to 75%. The plaintiff appealed against the assessment of damages. ### Key Legal Issues The primary legal issue was how the trial judge handled the impact of the plaintiff's pre-existing degenerative spinal condition on the assessment of damages. The Court of Appeal had to review the appropriateness of the percentage discounts applied by the trial judge for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, pre-trial loss of earnings, and future loss of earnings, as well as the correctness of the multiplier used for future loss of earnings. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal held that when assessing damages, the pre-existing condition of the plaintiff's spine should be accounted for by an appropriate percentage discount reflecting the risks. While the trial judge's method was generally sound, the 75% discount for future loss of earnings was inconsistent with the 45% applied to other heads of damages, and there was an error in principle in calculating the multiplier for future loss of earnings. The court noted that where a pre-existing condition is likely to lead to disability, risks are usually accounted for by assessing general damages and using a reduced multiplier for future loss of earnings. The court ultimately decided to adjust the multiplier for future loss of earnings to 5 years and apply a consistent 45% discount across all heads of damages to ensure consistency in the assessment. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, substituting the award of $535,383.38 with a judgment for $825,758.38. The Court specifically adjusted the damages for future loss of earnings and corrected the deduction for employee's compensation. Costs of the appeal were ordered nisi to the plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed. ### Key Takeaways This case highlights the importance of properly accounting for pre-existing conditions when assessing damages in personal injury cases. The court reaffirmed that an appropriate multiplier should be used for future loss of earnings, considering the plaintiff's age, occupation, and the risks associated with pre-existing conditions. Furthermore, the judgment emphasizes the need for consistency in applying percentage discounts for pre-existing conditions across different heads of damages to ensure a fair and reasonable assessment. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.