法庭如何計算交通意外的賠償？ How does the court determine the amount of compensation in a traffic accident?

 法庭如何計算交通意外的賠償？

藝人蒙嘉慧於 2011年駕駛時撞傷原告。原告入稟法庭向蒙嘉慧索償四百萬港元，但是法官只判予原告51萬港元賠償。

其中一項賠償是「痛楚、受苦及失去生活樂趣的損害」賠償。根據Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2003] 1 AC 32的原則，法庭會考慮原告意外是否原告受傷的真正原因。在Tang Chi Keung v Mung Ka Wai - [2018] HKCU 2403中，原告在意外發生 7 個月前頸部已經有傷患，他卻嘗試隱瞞事實。法官應用同樣的原則認為原告25%的傷患與本案無關，扣減了部分賠償金額。

另一項賠償是收入損失。原告稱他在意外後因為傷患無法繼續原有的工作，倒閉了他的公司。不過，法官檢視過醫療報告後發現原告的傷患較輕微，仍然可以從事原有的工作，原告甚至於意外後來往中港兩地更頻繁以出售他的公司資產。法官還發現原告在意外後他的公司仍然有接獲新訂單，與的供辭有出入。他經營的公司因為營運成本上升等商業理由利潤減少，與本案無關。因此，法官大大減少了原告要求的賠償。

由此可見，法庭會按意外對原告產生的損失判予賠償。原告在審訊期間維持證供一致十分重要，因為這會影響法官考慮賠償金額時判斷證據是否可靠，影響結案時的賠償金額。

How does the court determine the amount of compensation in a traffic accident?

In 2011, artist Yoyo Mung crashed her car and injured the plaintiff, who sued her for 4 million dollars in compensation. However, the court only awarded $515,195 as damages.

One of the categories of compensation is pain, suffering and loss of amenities. The court will determine whether the accident was the actual cause of the plaintiff’s pain. (see Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2003] 1 AC 32.) The principle is applied in Tang Chi Keung v Mung Ka Wai - [2018] HKCU 2403. The judge found that the plaintiff suffered from pre-existing neck injuries 7 months before the accident although the plaintiff tried to conceal it. Upon examining evidence, the court held the plaintiff was accountable for 25% of the pain due to his pre-existing conditions.

The plaintiff also claimed loss of earnings. He claimed that he wound up his company because of the injuries sustained. However, the judge found that from doctors’ assessments, the plaintiff could resume pre-injuries job because his injuries were not substantiated. In fact, the judge found it incredible could even travel more frequently to China to wind up his business. He was also inconsistent in his statements as to receiving new business orders after the injuries. The loss of his business could also be explained by other commercial reasons unrelated to his injuries, including increase in costs of sales. Therefore, the judge reduced a significant amount of the claimed loss of earnings to be granted to the plaintiff.

The court will examine whether the consequences were actually caused by the incident. It is important to give consistent evidence in order for the judge to form an impression that the evidence is reliable to grant damages in favour of the plaintiff.