| 单词 | Res ipsa loquitur |
| 释义 | 事情不言自明 Lat – the thing or matter speaks for itself. The plaintiff prima facie establishes negligence where: (i) it is not possible for him to prove precisely what was the relevant act or omission which set in train the events leading to the accident; but (ii) on the evidence as it stands at the relevant time it is more likely than not that the effective cause of the accident was some act or omission of the defendant or of someone for whom the defendant is responsible, which act or omission constitutes a failure to take proper care for the plaintiff's safety: Lloyde v West Midlands Gas Board [1971] 2 All ER 1240; Ideal Consolidators Ltd v Maeda Corp [1992] 1 HKC 528. A plea of res ipsa loquitur wil only succeed when the plaintiff can prove that the instrumentality that caused the harm was within the exclusive control of the defendant (Easson v London and North Eastern Rly Co [1944] KB 421, 2 All ER 425 (CA)) and the accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur if those in control have taken reasonable care (Kealey v Heard [1983] 1 All ER 973, [1983] 1 WLR 573) and the defendant cannot provide a reasonable explanation for the accident (Barkway South Wales Transport Co Ltd [1950] AC 185, 1 All ER 392 (HL); Chan Kwok Ping v Hop Yick Engineering Co (A Firm) [1997] 4 HKC 166, HKLRD 1390 (CA)). It is not necessary to plead the doctrine; it is enough to prove the facts which make it applicable: Bennett v Chemical Construction (GB) Ltd [1971] 3 All ER 822, 1 WLR 1571 (CA); Wong Yiu Ming v To Chark Wah [1993] 1 HKC 510 (DC). See also Negligence. 拉丁語 － 事實說明自己或事實本身說明一切。如 (i) 原告不可能準確地證明甚麼是引致意外發生的一連串事件的有關的行為或不行為； 但 (ii) 就證據在有關的時間而言，意外發生的可能原因更加相當可能是被告或被告對其有責任的人的若干行為或不行為，而有關的行為或不行為構成對原告的安全未能作出適當的小心，原告即表面上確立有疏忽：Lloyde v West Midlands Gas Board [1971] 2 All ER 1240; Ideal Consolidators Ltd v Maeda Corp [1992] 1 HKC 528。如原告可證明引起傷害的媒介是在被告獨有控制之內，(Easson v London and North Eastern Rly Co [1944] KB 421, 2 All ER 425（英國上訴法院）)而如果負責控制的人作出合理的小心，有關的意外屬於一般不會發生的意外，(Kealey v Heard [1983] 1 All ER 973, [1983] 1 WLR 573) 及被告不能提供發生意外的合理解釋（Barkway South Wales Transport Co Ltd [1950] AC 185, 1 All ER 392（上議院）; Chan Kwok Ping v Hop Yick Engineering Co (A Firm) [1997] 4 HKC 166, HKLRD 1390（上訴法庭））， 事情不言自明的申辯才會成功。不須就此原則申辯；證明可使其適用的事實已足夠：Bennett v Chemical Construction (GB) Ltd [1971] 3 All ER 822, 1 WLR 1571（英國上訴法院）; Wong Yiu Ming v To Chark Wah [1993] 1 HKC 510（區域法院）。另見 Negligence。 |
| 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。