| 单词 | Voluntary assumption of risk |
| 释义 | 自願承擔風險 A common law defence to a claim. Product liability - A defence to a product liability claim that may be available where it can be shown that the plaintiff made a deliberate decision to assume the risk of loss or damage in using or consuming a product: for example Ingham v Emes [1955] 2 All ER 740. See also Caveat emptor. Tort - A defence to a claim of negligence by which a plaintiff is denied recovery for an injury incurred as a result of the defendant’s negligence where the plaintiff has voluntarily exposed himself or herself to the risk of being injured: Merrington v Ironbridge Metal Works Ltd [1952] 2 All ER 1101. The question whether the plaintiff’s acceptance of the risk was voluntary is generally one of fact, and the answer to it may be inferred from his conduct in the circumstances. Based on the maxim volenti non fit injuria, it operates as a complete defence where the claimant has full knowledge of both the nature and extent of the risk: Tso Yung v Cheng Yeung Hing & Anor (HCPI 1509/2000, unreported); Morris v Murray & Anor [1991] 2 QB 6, [1990] 3 All ER 801, 2 WLR 195 (CA). Volenti non fit injuria does not operate as a defence where the risk assumed was not the relevant risk of injury which caused the plaintiff’s injury. It is not sufficient for a defendant to prove that the plaintiff consented to an activity he or she knew to be dangerous. In employer and employee cases based on common law negligence, the defence of volenti non fit injuria must be applied with extreme caution: Bowater v Rowley Regis Corp [1944] KB 476. Where a plaintiff acts to save another from injury he is not deemed to assume the risk of the consequences even if he acts voluntarily and with full knowledge of the danger: Tam Sau Fong v Sheng Kung Hui Diocesan Welfare Council [2002] 3 HKC 366. The doctrine has no application in rescue cases, except in rare circumstances: Ogwo v Taylor [1988] AC 431. This defence often overlaps with the plea of contributory negligence in mitigation of damages. See also Volens; Volenti non fit injuria. 在普通法上，針對某申索而作出的抗辯。 產品的法律責任 - 就產品的法律責任的申索而提出的抗辯，而此抗辯在以下情況下適用：當可證明原告人經過深思熟慮，決定承擔在使用或享用某產品時可能蒙受損失或損害的風險：例如，Ingham v Emes [1955] 2 All ER 740。另見 Caveat emptor。 侵權法 - 針對疏忽的申索而提出的抗辯。基於此抗辯，當原告人自願地致使他／她本人可能蒙受損害的風險，就被告人的疏忽而導致的損害，該原告人提出的追討將予以否定：Merrington v Ironbridge Metal Works Ltd [1952] 2 All ER 1101。概括而言，該原告人是否自願接受有關風險屬事實的問題，而答案可在有關的情況下從該原告人的行為推斷出來。根據對自願者不構成損害的規則，如申索人充分知悉風險的性質及程度，這則可作為充分的抗辯：Tso Yung v Cheng Yeung Hing & Anor （高院傷亡訴訟2000年第1509號，未經彙報）; Morris v Murray & Anor [1991] 2 QB 6, [1990] 3 All ER 801, 2 WLR 195 （芵國上訴法院）。當承擔的風險並非導致原告人損害的有關風險，則對自願者不構成損害的規則不會構成抗辯。被告人能證明原告人知悉某活動具危險性，並對該活動予以同意，這亦並不屬於充分的證明。根據普通法疏忽行為，在僱主及僱員的案件中，必須極度慎重地引用對自願者不構成損害的抗辯：Bowater v Rowley Regis Corp [1944] KB 476。當被告人為拯救另一人免受損害而行事，即使該被告人自願行事及充分知悉有關的危險，他亦不會被視為須承擔有關後果的風險：Tam Sau Fong v Sheng Kung Hui Diocesan Welfare Council [2002] 3 HKC 366。除在罕有的情況外，該原則不適用於救援的案件：Ogwo v Taylor [1988] AC 431。為減低損害賠償而提出共分疏忽的答辯，通常與此等抗辯有部分重疊。另見 Volens; Volenti non fit injuria。 |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。