| 单词 | Hospital's duty of care |
| 释义 | 醫院的謹慎責任 A hospital’s non-delegable duty of care to its patients to ensure that they are treated in a competent manner by competent medical personnel. It cannot avoid liability by showing that the doctor, surgeon, anaesthetist or other employee was negligent. A doctor or surgeon may be under a contract of service (employee) or for services (independent contractor). In either case, the hospital owes a duty of care to the patient: Srivastava & Tennekone The Law of Tort in Hong Kong (1995), Ch 16, pp 260-1; Cassidy v Ministry of Health (Fahrni, Third Party) [1951] 1 All ER 574 (CA); Tsang Choi Yung v United Christian Hospital [1993] HKLY 471. A hospital authority may have a primary or direct duty, as distinguished from vicarious liability, for selecting competent staff of sufficient skill and experience. Where a hospital has selected competent staff who are negligent in the performance of their duty, then it becomes vicariously liable for such negligence. Conversely, if the hospital is negligent in the selection of its staff and a person suffers loss or injury as a result of such negligence, the hospital becomes primarily and directly liable: Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1986] 3 All ER 801 (CA). See also Duty to disclose; Medical negligence; Vicarious liability. 醫院就其病人有不可轉委的謹慎責任，以確保病人由符合資格的醫護人員，以能夠勝任進行醫護工作的方式醫治。醫院不能藉證明內科醫生、外科醫生或麻醉師有疏忽，而逃避法律責任。內科醫生或外科醫生可能受僱於僱用合約（僱員）或服務合約（獨立承包人）。但無論如何，醫院對其病人均負有謹慎責任：Srivastava & Tennekone The Law of Tort in Hong Kong (1995), 第 16章, 第 260至261頁； Cassidy v Ministry of Health (Fahrni, Third Party) [1951] 1 All ER 574（芵國上訴法院）；Tsang Choi Yung v United Christian Hospital [1993] HKLY 471。就選聘符合充分技術及經驗資格的醫護人員而言，醫院當局可能負有主要的或直接的責任，而非替代責任。凡醫院已選聘的符合資格的醫護人員，在履行其責任時有疏忽的地方，則醫院須就此等疏忽負上轉承法律責任。相反地，如醫院在選聘員工時疏忽而導致他人蒙受損失或傷害，則有關醫院須負上主要或直接的法律責任：Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1986] 3 All ER 801（芵國上訴法院）。另見 Duty to disclose; Medical negligence; Vicarious liability。 |
| 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。