| 单词 | Professional negligence |
| 释义 | 專業上的疏忽 1. A breach of a duty of care in tort or contract owed to a client or third party arising out of the carrying on of professional practice. In the performance of professional work a professional person must apply the standard of care of the ordinary skilled person exercising and professing to have that special skill: Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582; Foshan Hua Da Industrial Co v Johnson, Stokes & Master (a firm) [1999] 1 HKC 192. For example, professional advisers are liable in negligence of their careless advice result in injury: Bank of East Asia Ltd v Tsien Wui Marble Factory Ltd [2000] 1 HKC 1. The standard of a professional cannot be judged from the standpoint of hindsight which is likely to promote too high a standard: Kensland Realty Ltd v Whale View Investment Ltd [2002] 1 HKC 243, 1 HKLRD 87 (CFA). Acting in accordance with general practice may be negligence if it involves a foreseeable risk: Edward Wong Finance Co Ltd v Johnson Stokes & Master (a firm) [1984] 1 AC 296, 2 WLR 1 (PC); Feerni Development Ltd v Daniel Wong & Partners [2001] 1 HKC 373, 2 HKLRD 13. The extent of a professional’s duty to warn of risk is assessed by reference to the standards of the profession: Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital [1985] AC 871, 1 All ER 643 (HL). Exceptionally, the court may disregard professional practice on the ground that it fails to meet the requirement of reasonable care: Edward Wong Finance Co Ltd v Johnson Stokes & Master (a firm), supra. 2. In tort law, advice or information imparted negligently by a defendant in circumstances in which he or she realises or ought to have realised that the plaintiff was relying on the advice or information as the basis for a course of action: Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465; Baron v Hartford Fire Insurance Co & Ors [1999] 2 HKC 388, [1998] 1 HKLRD 411. The plaintiff’s reliance on the defendant’s advice or information must have been reasonable in the circumstances: Yuen Kun Yeu v A-G [1987] 2 HKC 25 (PC). See also Duty in contract; Duty in tort; Duty of care; Negligent misrepresentation; Professional advice; Professional misconduct; Standard of care. 1. 在經營專業業務時, 在民事侵權或合約上對當事人或第三者違反小心的責任。在履行專業工作時 , 專業人士必須遵守普通有技術人士在行使及從事該特別技術時的小心標準: Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582; Foshan Hua Da Industrial v Johnson, Stokes & Master (a firm) [1999] 1 HKLRD 418。例如, 專業顧問就其作出不小心的意見而招致傷害有疏忽的法律責任: Bank of East Asia Ltd v Tsien Wui Marble Factory Ltd [2000] 1 HKLRD 268 （終審法院） 。專業的標準不可由事後聰明的觀點判斷, 因相當可能促使有過高的標準: Kensland Realty Ltd v Whale View Investment Ltd [2002] 1 HKC 343, 1 HKLRD 87 （終審法院） 。如牽涉可預見的危機, 按照一般實務行動可能是疏忽: Edward Wong Finance Co Ltd v Johnson Stokes & Master (a firm) [1984] AC 296, 3 WLR 1 （樞密院）； Feerni Development Ltd v Daniel Wong & Partners [2001] 1 HKC 373, 2 HKLRD 13。專業人士作出危機警告的責任的程度透過專業標準評估: Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital [1985] AC 871, 1 All ER 643 （上議院） 。例外地, 法院可基於有關的專業實務未能符合合理小心的要求而不理會專業實務: Edward Wong Finance Co Ltd v Johnson Stokes & Master (公司), 見上文。 2. 在民事侵權法,在被告知道或應該知道原告倚賴有關的意見或資料作為過程的基礎的情況下, 被告疏忽地告知原告的意見或資料 : Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465; Baron v Hartford Fire Insurance Co Ltd [1998] 1 HKLRD 411。在有關的情況上, 原告對被告意見或資料的倚賴必須合理: Yuen Kun Yeu v A-G [1987] 2 HKC 25 （樞密院） 。另見 Duty in contract; Duty in tort; Duty of care; Negligent misrepresentation; Professional advice; Professional misconduct; Standard of care。 |
| 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。