意外導致的椎間盤損傷賠償？申索部分得直

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：LEUNG LEE JASMINE（梁莉）v GO FRESH (HONG KONG) COMPANY LIMITED 綠健食品（香港）有限公司 - 法院：區域法院 (District Court) - 法官：李樹旭暫委法官 (His Honour Judge Andrew Li) - 判決日期：2016年10月28日 ### 案情摘要 原告梁莉女士於2013年7月18日在被告的餐廳內因椅子突然斷裂而受傷。被告於2016年2月承認法律責任，本案僅處理損害賠償評估。原告受傷後被送往明愛醫院，診斷為背部挫傷及懷疑尾骨骨折，X光顯示尾骨後移及骨折線。其後MRI顯示L4/5椎間盤脫水及環狀撕裂。原告接受物理治療，但持續出現反覆背痛及雙下肢麻木。專家意見對L4/5椎間盤環狀撕裂是否由意外引起存在分歧。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要爭議點包括：L4/5腰椎椎間盤環狀撕裂是否由意外引起，還是既存狀況；疼痛、痛苦及生活享受損失 (PSLA) 的適當賠償金額；原告是否有權就為接受物理治療而損失的年假索償；原告是否有權獲得喪失賺取收入能力 (loss of earning capacity) 的賠償；原告丈夫是否有權獲得喪失配偶陪伴 (loss of society) 的賠償；特別損害賠償 (special damages) 的適當金額；以及未來物理治療費用的賠償。 ### 判決理由 法庭接納原告證供誠實可信，並偏好原告專家證人黃醫生關於L4/5椎間盤環狀撕裂與意外相關的意見，理由是原告年輕、單一椎間盤受損、受傷機制吻合及無過往病史。法庭認為原告的傷勢及特殊情況（如長期臥床、無法照顧子女、影響婚姻關係及年輕）證明其痛苦真實且嚴重，故判予較高金額的PSLA賠償。法庭亦裁定原告有權就為治療而損失的年假索償，並接納其丈夫就喪失配偶陪伴的證供。然而，法庭駁回喪失賺取收入能力的索償，因缺乏相關證據。對於補品索償，法庭雖認為原告傷勢不輕，但依據判例僅判給一半金額。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗案例以評估疼痛、痛苦及生活享受損失 (PSLA) 和喪失配偶陪伴 (loss of society) 的賠償金額： - Cheung Oi Yan Rudy v Wong Hoi Sum [2012] 4 HKLRD 334 - Lauw Ka Fong v Best City Ltd HCPI 436 of 2014 - Yau Tse Hin v Broadway Theatre Co Ltd [2013] HKEC 473 - Wong Wai Man v Yi Wo Yuen Aged Sanatorium Centre Ltd HCPI 77 of 2007 - Chan Yuk King v Tung Chun, unrep., DCPI 2289/2008 - Chan Kwei Duen v East Country Company Limited, unrep, DCPI 665/2005 - Chan Ha v Lee Hon Ming and Anr, unrep., HCPI 414/2001 - Chan Wai-tong & Anr v Li Ping Sum [1985] HKLR 176 - Cai Guoping v Yim Hok Wing and Others, unrep., CACV 96/2015 - Law Ping Leung v Ng Sze Pong [2009] 5 HKLRD 426 - Leung Kowk Biu v Tam San Yu (2012) unrep., HCPI 810 of 2008 - Yu Ki v Chin Kit Lam [1981] HKLR 419 這些案例影響了法官對各項賠償金額的裁定，尤其是在PSLA和補品索償方面。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭裁定原告勝訴，判給總計$548,374的損害賠償。具體包括：疼痛、痛苦及生活享受損失$350,000；收入損失$35,486；喪失配偶陪伴$80,000；特別損害賠償$82,888。喪失賺取收入能力及未來物理治療費用索償被駁回。法庭亦頒令被告須支付原告的訟費，並按一般損害賠償2%及特別損害賠償4%計算利息。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了法庭在評估人身傷害賠償時，會仔細審視原告證供的誠信度，並在專家意見分歧時，根據客觀證據和原告的具體情況作出判斷。即使醫療報告簡短，法庭仍會考慮原告的實際經歷和治療過程。此外，法庭在處理補品索償時，即使認為傷勢不輕，仍會受既有判例限制，僅判給名義或適度金額。本案亦突顯了在索償喪失賺取收入能力時，必須提供充分證據證明勞動市場上的不利影響。 --- ### 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: LEUNG LEE JASMINE v GO FRESH (HONG KONG) COMPANY LIMITED - Court: District Court - Judge: His Honour Judge Andrew Li - Date of Judgment: 28 October 2016 ### Factual Background The plaintiff, Madam Leung Lee Jasmine, sustained injuries on 18 July 2013 when a chair she was sitting on in the defendant's restaurant suddenly broke. The defendant admitted liability in February 2016, leaving only the assessment of damages to be determined. Immediately after the accident, the plaintiff was sent to Caritas Medical Centre, diagnosed with back contusion and suspected coccygeal fracture, with X-rays showing posterior displacement and fracture line at the coccyx. Subsequent MRI revealed desiccated L4/5 disc with an annular tear. The plaintiff underwent physiotherapy but continued to suffer from recurrent back pain and bilateral lower limb numbness. Expert opinions diverged on whether the L4/5 annular tear was caused by the accident. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions in dispute included: whether the L4/5 lumbar disc annular tear was caused by the accident or was a pre-existing condition; the appropriate amount of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities (PSLA); whether the plaintiff was entitled to claim for loss of annual leave taken for physiotherapy; whether the plaintiff was entitled to an award for loss of earning capacity; whether the plaintiff's husband was entitled to an award for loss of society; the appropriate amount for special damages; and whether there should be an award for the cost of future physiotherapy treatment. ### Ratio Decidendi The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence as honest and credible, preferring Dr. Wong's expert opinion that the L4/5 disc annular tear was related to the accident, citing the plaintiff's young age, single disc involvement, compatible injury mechanism, and lack of prior history. The court found the plaintiff's injuries and special circumstances (e.g., prolonged bed rest, inability to care for children, impact on marital relationship, and young age) demonstrated genuine and severe suffering, justifying a higher PSLA award. The court also ruled the plaintiff was entitled to claim for lost annual leave and accepted her husband's evidence for loss of society. However, the claim for loss of earning capacity was rejected due to insufficient evidence. For tonic food claims, despite the non-minor injuries, the court awarded only half the claimed amount based on precedent. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents for assessing damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities (PSLA) and loss of society: - Cheung Oi Yan Rudy v Wong Hoi Sum [2012] 4 HKLRD 334 - Lauw Ka Fong v Best City Ltd HCPI 436 of 2014 - Yau Tse Hin v Broadway Theatre Co Ltd [2013] HKEC 473 - Wong Wai Man v Yi Wo Yuen Aged Sanatorium Centre Ltd HCPI 77 of 2007 - Chan Yuk King v Tung Chun, unrep., DCPI 2289/2008 - Chan Kwei Duen v East Country Company Limited, unrep, DCPI 665/2005 - Chan Ha v Lee Hon Ming and Anr, unrep., HCPI 414/2001 - Chan Wai-tong & Anr v Li Ping Sum [1985] HKLR 176 - Cai Guoping v Yim Hok Wing and Others, unrep., CACV 96/2015 - Law Ping Leung v Ng Sze Pong [2009] 5 HKLRD 426 - Leung Kowk Biu v Tam San Yu (2012) unrep., HCPI 810 of 2008 - Yu Ki v Chin Kit Lam [1981] HKLR 419 These cases influenced the judge's determination of various damage awards, particularly for PSLA and tonic food claims. ### Decision & Orders The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, awarding total damages of $548,374. This included: $350,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenities; $35,486 for loss of earnings; $80,000 for loss of society; and $82,888 for special damages. Claims for loss of earning capacity and future physiotherapy costs were dismissed. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs, with interest at 2% for general damages and 4% for special damages. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights that courts, when assessing personal injury damages, will scrutinize the credibility of the plaintiff's testimony and, in cases of conflicting expert opinions, make determinations based on objective evidence and the plaintiff's specific circumstances. Even with brief medical reports, the court considers the plaintiff's actual experience and treatment history. Furthermore, when dealing with claims for tonic food, the court, despite acknowledging non-minor injuries, is bound by existing precedents to award only nominal or modest sums. The case also underscores the necessity of providing sufficient evidence to prove adverse effects on the labour market when claiming for loss of earning capacity. --- ### 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.