TSE PARC KI a minor by her father and next friend, TSE WAH YUEN JOSEPH v. ATLANTIC TEAM LTD t/a LE BEAUMONT LANGUAGE CENTRE DCPI001981/2006

S’s words:-
The Minor was injured when she was having a Spanish program. The liability on the part of the school is obvious. Without legal representatives’ assistance, the Defendant chose to defend the issue of liability that caused a referral to the police for an investigation of employing an unemployable.

I believe the Defendant is/was not insured (or properly insured) at the material time, or otherwise, the insurer would take over the conduct of the proceedings and the tragdey abovementioned would not occur.

For the issue of quantum, the amount of PSLA awarded in the sum of HK$40,000.00 is another good amount that in future we can adopt to rely on for minor injuries. Certainly, it is expected the father of the Minor (as a father) would not regard the injuries as minor.

Who is the father of the Minor? That is another matter I believe the Honourable Court has not taken into account.

--- quote from judgment ---

Date of Handing down Judgment : 11th December 2007

Parc-ki was 2 and 1/2 years old when she was enrolled in a 12-lesson Spanish program offered by the Defendant at its language centre in Admiralty.

How did the accident happen?
Parc-ki’s parents were not present when the accident happened. According to Parc-ki’s mother, she was told what had happened when she returned to the Defendant’s language centre after the accident. Tony and Emily (who were both staff at the Defendant’s language centre) told her that Parc-ki had wanted to use the toilet during the lesson and left the classroom. As Parc-ki was trying to put on her shoes at the doorway, Sonia slammed the classroom door. Parc-ki’s right middle finger was caught by the door and was crushed.

The Defendant put forward a very different version of events in its Amended Defence. The Defendant says that the Spanish program had already finished when the accident happened. Parc-ki had left the classroom and was no longer under the care of Sonia. As Parc-ki’s parents were late to receive Parc-ki, she had to put on the shoes herself. When she lifted up one leg to put on her shoe, she lost balance and stretched her hands backward towards the doorway. Shortly before that, Sonia had just given a gentle push to close the classroom door. Parc-ki’s right middle finger was therefore caught by the closing door and was crushed.

Two different versions of events have been put forward by the parties. I find the Defendant’s version unreliable for the above reasons. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s version is not based on direct evidence but on hearsay evidence. Be that as it may, there is nothing for me to cast doubt on the testimony of Parc-ki’s mother as to what she was told. It is only reasonable for the Defendant’s staff to report to her when she attended the Defendant’s language centre after the accident. Tony and Emily were clearly on duty at the time. Indeed, Tony admits having spoken to Parc-ki’s mother after the accident although he now claims to have forgotten what was said to her. The Defendant has also put much emphasis on the impossibility of Sonia “slamming” the door. In my view, it matters not whether the door was slammed shut or closed gently. This is a figure of speech and a matter of perception. There is really no dispute that Parc-ki’s finger was indeed caught by the door that was closed by Sonia. What matters is whether Sonia had done what was required of her as Parc-ki’s teacher in the circumstances of this case to ensure the safety of Parc-ki. This will be discussed further below.

In the premises, I find the Plaintiff’s version of what happened more believable.

Whether the Defendant is liable for the personal injuries suffered by Parc-ki?
There is a positive duty on schoolteachers to protect their students’ well-being. The duty of a schoolteacher has been said to be to take such care of his pupils as a reasonably careful father would take of the children of the family. It is a schoolteacher’s duty to take all reasonable and proper steps, bearing in mind the known propensities of children, to prevent any of his pupils from suffering injury, whether from inanimate objects, from the actions of their fellow pupils, or from a combination of both. What things are likely to injure pupils is a question of degree, depending on the nature of the thing and the age of the pupils. A schoolteacher is also under a duty to exercise supervision over pupils whilst they are on the school premises. The amount of supervision required depends on the age of the pupils and what they are doing at the material time, but no teacher could reasonably be expected to keep a close watch on each child every minute of the day, unless there is some reason to be alerted or put on inquiry. Given the level of responsibility, the standard of care is high, although not expressed as any more than should be reasonably expected in the circumstances. See Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence, 11th edition (2006), §§8-179 to 8-193.

The Defendant operated the language centre and Sonia was assigned by the Defendant to run that program. In my view, the positive duty put on schoolteachers to protect their students’ well-being applies equally to Sonia. On the day in question, Sonia closed the door knowing full well that Parc-ki was still trying to put on her shoes at the doorway. Sonia was negligent in failing to ensure that Parc-ki had put on her shoes or was otherwise well clear of the doorway before closing the door. Whether the door was slammed shut or closed gently is beside the point. The Defendant as the provider of the Spanish program relied on Sonia to run the program in order to earn the course fees. In my view, the tortious act of Sonia was so closely connected with her employment with the Defendant that it would be fair and just to hold the Defendant vicariously liable.

In the premises, I find the Defendant liable for the personal injuries suffered by Parc-ki.

What is the amount of compensation payable to Plaintiff?
After the accident, Parc-ki was taken to the Accident and Emergency Department of Queen Mary Hospital. Physical examination by Dr. Lo Wing-kee showed avulsed nail and bleeding from the nail bed in the right middle finger. X-ray showed a chip fracture in the distal phalanx.

According to Parc-ki’s mother, it took 8 months for Parc-ki to get over from being conscious of the injury. Thankfully, there is nothing to suggest that Parc-ki has suffered any permanent disability.

The Plaintiff’s counsel fairly concedes the claim for “future loss of earnings / loss of opportunity” and the claim for “loss of earning capacity / handicap in the labour market”. In any event, I do not think such an award is justified given the fact that Parc-ki has not suffered any disability that would affect her future earning capacity.

As to the claim for damages for PSLA, the Plaintiff’s counsel (who did not settle the Revised Statement of Damages) relies on Singh Jagdeep v. VSC Engineering Products Company Limited, DCPI 391/2005 and Yu Pau Yau v. Co-Ray Design & Construction Limited, DCPI 864/2006 and now suggests a figure of $50,000 to $100,000.

In Jagdeep, the plaintiff’s left hand was hit by a broken disc from an electric disc cutter machine. He suffered abrasion over the left dorsal part of his hand. Fingers’ movement and sensation were otherwise normal and there was no fracture. Sick leave was granted for a total of 16 days. The learned judge found that the plaintiff had suffered a ½ cm abrasion with minimal pain and suffering and awarded $30,000 for PSLA in June 2005. I find Parc-ki’s injury slightly more serious than that suffered by the plaintiff in Jagdeep.

Taking everything into consideration, I consider that an award of $40,000 for PSLA is justified.

As the facts of this case reveal that the Defendant might have committed a criminal offence in employing Sonia who was not legally employable in Hong Kong at the time, the case is referred to the Department of Justice through the Registrar for investigation.