| 单词 | Negligence |
| 释义 | 疏忽 A specific action in tort law (Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] AC 85 (PC)); the failure to exercise that care which the circumstances demand (Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis [1955] AC 549, 1 All ER 565 (HL); Pioneer concrete (Hong Kong) Ltd v Cheng Ping Tsoo [1983] 2 HKC 587). It means more than needless or careless conduct, whether in omission or commission: it properly connotes the complex concept of a duty of care; breach of that duty; and material damage as a consequence of the breach of duty: Lochgelly Iron and Coal Co Ltd v M’Mullan [1934] AC 1 (HL). What amounts to negligence depends on the facts of each particular case Hay (or Bourhill) v Young [1943] AC 92, [1942] 2 All ER 396 (HL). A duty of care is a legal obligation to avoid causing harm, and arises where harm is foreseeable if due care is not taken. The type of damage, not its extent, must be foreseeable: Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. The plaintiff (as an individual or as a member of a class of plaintiff) must also be foreseeable for a duty of care to arise. The defendant breaches this duty if he or she fails to avoid the risk where a reasonable person would have done so. The burden of proof in an action for damages for negligence rests primarily on the plaintiff: Pickford v Imperial Chemical Industries plc [1998] 3 All ER (HL); Ng Chun Pui v Lee Chuen Tat [1988] 2 HKLR 425 (PC). See also Breach of duty of care; Causation; Criminal negligence; Contributory negligence; Foresight of consequences; Gross negligence; Injury; Proximity; Reasonable person; Remoteness; Standard of care; Tort; Voluntary assumption of risk. 侵權法中的特定行為(Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] AC 85 (樞密院))；無法行使情況所要求的謹慎(Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis [1955] AC 549, 1 All ER 565 (上議院); Pioneer concrete (Hong Kong) Ltd v Cheng Ping Tsoo [1983] 2 HKC 587)。疏忽的涵義不止於不必要或不小心的行為，不論是不作為或犯罪：它適當地包含謹慎責任的複雜概念；不履行謹慎責任；以及因不履行責任而引致重大損害：Lochgelly Iron and Coal Co Ltd v M’Mullan [1934] AC 1 (上議院)。構成疏忽的元素依靠各特定案件的事實而定：Hay (or Bourhill) v Young [1943] AC 92, [1942] 2 All ER 396 (上議院)。謹慎責任是避免引致損害的法律義務，當可預見損害時，如沒有適當地小心，即構成謹慎責任。損害的種類，而不是其程度，必須為可預見的：Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837。原訴人（作為獨立人士或作為一組原訴人的其中一員）必須為可預見的，方可引起謹慎責任。被告人如無法避免任何合理的人可避免的風險，即屬不履行責任。就有關疏忽而作出的損害賠償訴訟而言，舉證責任主要在原訴人身上：Pickford v Imperial Chemical Industries plc [1998] 3 All ER (上議院); Ng Chun Pui v Lee Chuen Tat [1988] 2 HKLR 425 (樞密院)。另見 Breach of duty of care; Causation; Criminal negligence; Contributory negligence; Foresight of consequences; Gross negligence; Injury; Proximity; Reasonable person; Remoteness; Standard of care; Tort; Voluntary assumption of risk。n. |
| 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。