Khoo Ih Chu v Chong Hoe Siong Jeremy
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Chao Hick Tin JC |
Judgment Date | 30 August 1989 |
Neutral Citation | [1989] SGHC 78 |
Docket Number | Suit No 1462 of 1987 |
Date | 30 August 1989 |
Published date | 19 September 2003 |
Year | 1989 |
Plaintiff Counsel | KK Tang (Tang & Partners) |
Citation | [1989] SGHC 78 |
Defendant Counsel | Benedict Chan (Goh Poh & Partners) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Subject Matter | Dental surgeon unable to work as before,Tort,Whether plaintiff's loss of earnings should be considered,Loss of earning,Negligence,Personal injuries cases,Dental surgeon's hand,Injury to hand,Measure of damages,Damages personal injuries,Damages,Income after tax considered |
This was an action for damages for injuries suffered by the plaintiff on account of a motor accident. The plaintiff was, on 6 March 1986 at 10.15pm, a passenger in motor vehicle EE 4667, which was being driven by the defendant along Cornwall Garden when it collided into motor lorry YB 5299, which was parked by the side of the said road. Interlocutory judgment was, on 21 September 1987, entered against the defendant, with damages to be assessed by the registrar.
At an assessment held on 19 November 1988, the assistant registrar awarded the plaintiff a total sum of $148,899 as damages, made up as follows:
General damages
(i) Pain and suffering $ 15,000.00
(ii) Cost of future operation (with antecedent pain) $ 6,000.00
(iii) Loss of future earnings $ 108,000.00
Special damages
(i) Agreed $ 7,019.00
(ii) Loss of earnings ($230 per day for 56 days) $ 12,880.00
Total $ 148,899.00
The assistant registrar also awarded interest at 6% on the $15,000 for pain and suffering and on the $19,899 for special damages from the date of the issue of the writ to the date of judgment.
The defendant appealed against the whole decision of the assistant registrar. I heard the appeal and reduced the amount for pain and suffering from $15,000 to $12,000 and the amount for the cost of future operation from $6,000 to $4,000. However, I maintained the amounts awarded by the assistant registrar for loss of earnings and loss of future earnings. No argument was made by counsel for the defendant against that part of the order of the assistant registrar relating to interest. The defendant has now appealed to the Court of Appeal against those two items plus the item on the cost of future operation.
Injuries suffered
The plaintiff, who was aged 39 on the date of assessment, is a dental surgeon by occupation. As a result of the accident, he suffered the following injuries:
(i) open and crushed wound of the interphalangeal joints of the left thumb;
(ii) complete division of the exterior pollicis longus tendon; and
(iii) laceration over the ulnar aspect of the front left wrist.
The plaintiff was operated upon for the injuries and was hospitalized for five days. He was away from work for 56 days. The injuries on the left thumb has since healed. The residue disabilities were described in these terms by Dr Chang Wei Chun, orthopaedic and trauma surgeon, in his report of 27 June 1988:
He complained of pain and stiffness of the interphalangeal joint of his left thumb. He was unable to put any protracted pressure on the thumb. This affected his occupation as a dental surgeon as he was unable to hold any instruments between the thumb and index for long. At times he would get spasms of pain in the interphalangeal joint causing him to drop the instrument he was holding.
He also complained of weakness of his left middle, ring and little fingers.
Clinically, the interphalangeal joint of the left thumb was painful to pressure. Flexion was restricted from 0 to 30 degrees compared to 80 degrees on the right side. The left middle, ring and little fingers were weak resulting in weakness of opposition between the thumb and fingers.
Radiologically, there was established degenerative osteoarthritic changes of the interphalangeal joint of the left thumb.
Conclusion:
The above-named had severely injured the interphalangeal joint of his left thumb in this accident. Osteoarthritis had set in and he had permanent pain, weakness and restriction of motion of the joint. If his symptoms worsen, he may require an arthrodesis of this joint.
The weakness of his left middle, ring and little fingers is due to an old neuropraxic injury to his ulnar-nerve when he sustained his laceration on the wrist. This will not improve at this point of time.
In his evidence before the assistant registrar, Dr Chang said:
Osteoarthritis has set in. It will continue to deteriorate - the interphalangeal joint of the left thumb. As it degenerates, the pain will become more and more severe. Purely based on estimation, I feel it would be five years before the patient suffers loss of use of the thumb. If the patient feels sufficiently pain(ful), he could go for an operation to convert the painful stiff joint to painless stiff joint.
Dr Chang estimated that at the time of the assessment, taking into account the condition of the thumb and the weakness in the three fingers, the plaintiff had a permanent incapacity of 30% of the left hand, with 20% attributable to the thumb and 10% to the three fingers. In five years time as the thumb deteriorated, the permanent incapacity would increase by 10% to 40%.
The plaintiff, in his evidence, stated that he still suffered pain in his thumb. He was not able to move his thumb - loss of flexion. In his work, he had to use two hands. When he did extractions or fillings and had to bend his thumb, he could hear `the bones cracking`. In his dental practice, one third of his work involved operations, one third bridging and one third general dentistry. He could not carry on at the pace he used to work. When the pain got severe, he had to stop. He could not do two extractions continuously. He could not do more than one operation a day.
The plaintiff practised in partnership with two others in a dental surgery. The evidence was quite clear that his capacity to work had been reduced. He could not see and treat as many patients as he could before. The difference in the net profits which the firm earned in 1985 and 1986 was the sum of $20,000. The plaintiff explained that the net profits of the firm did not drop significantly because his partners worked harder and did not go on leave. But that could not go on forever. Moreover, from February 1989, and because of the plaintiff`s injury, the partners would be having a new arrangement. Under this new arrangement, it was likely that he would be earning less as income division would be tied up with earning capacity. The plaintiff said that before the accident, his average daily gross collection was $1,000 a day.
Loss of earnings
As stated above, for loss of earnings, the assistant registrar assessed the amount at $230 per day for 56 days making a total of $12,880. This amount would appear to be based on a computation set out in the defendant`s counsel`s written submission. The plaintiff`s income tax assessment for 1987 showed that he earned $86,223 in 1986. The tax payable was $11,948. His net income was therefore $74,275 which worked out (taking into account the 56 days he was on medical leave and not...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Ku Yu Sang v Tay Joo Sing and Another
-
Lee Teck Nam v Kang Hock Seng Paul
...1 SLR (R) 209; [2003] 1 SLR 209 (refd) Husain v New Taplow Paper Mills Ltd [1988] AC 514 (refd) Khoo Ih Chu v Chong Hoe Siong Jeremy [1989] 2 SLR (R) 243; [1989] SLR 855 (refd) Livingstone v The Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 AC 25 (refd) Low Swee Tong v Liew Machinery (Pte) Ltd [1993] 2 SLR (R)......
-
Yap Boon Fong Yvonne v Wong Kok Mun Alvin and another
...fact that the Plaintiff will essentially be receiving the benefit of a payment in advance (see Khoo Ih Chu v Chong Hoe Siong Jeremy [1989] 2 SLR(R) 243 at [27]). In the circumstances, and especially given that the Plaintiff did not argue this specific point, I do not think it necessary to m......
-
Murugasu, Euan v Singapore Airlines Ltd
...multiplier, the defendant submitted that a multiplier of 12 was excessive. It pointed out that in Khoo Ih Chu v Chong Hoe Siong Jeremy [1989] SLR 855, the High Court affirmed a multiplier of nine years for a 39-year-old dental surgeon. Khoo Ih Chu is a somewhat old case, however. In more re......