| 单词 | Standard of care |
| 释义 | 謹慎標準 The degree of care which would be expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances in question. Criminal law - The care, skill, or foresight that a hypothetical reasonable person would exercise in the same circumstances. A person who causes the death of another as a result of his or her breach of duty to that person which amounts to culpable neglect or gross negligence is guilty of manslaughter: Andrews v DPP [1937] AC 576, 2 All ER 552. The degree of negligence required is higher than that which would suffice for civil liability: Akerele v R [1943] AC 255, 1 All ER 367. The requisite standard of care may vary according to the nature of the offence including any statutory definition. For instance, a person who drives a motor vehicle on a road carelessly commits the offence of ‘careless driving’ under the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap 374) s 38(1); and one drives carelessly within the meaning of this provision if ‘on a road he drives a vehicle without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road’: s 38(2). See also Careless driving; Criminal negligence; Manslaughter. Legal practitioners - The level or content of a solicitor’s duty to exercise care, skill and diligence in the performance of work undertaken on behalf of the client. The main principle is that a solicitor must display the standard of care and skill of a reasonably competent and diligent solicitor. Thus his duty to his client is discharged if he does what a prudent member of his profession would do in the circumstances: Pomay Investments Ltd & Ors v Edward Wong Finance Co Ltd [1981] HKLR 454. He is not expected or bound to know all the law, nor is he to be judged according to the standard which might be demonstrated by a particularly meticulous and conscientious practitioner: Kensland Realty Ltd v Whale View Investment Ltd [2002] 1 HKC 243 (CFA). A solicitor is not expected to be faultless nor is he to be taken as his client’s insurer of any risk which the skill and care of a normally competent and careful practitioner cannot avoid. In determining whether a solicitor is guilty of negligence, the court has to apply what it perceives to be the standard of the normally competent solicitor. This is a finding of fact based on the particular circumstances of the case and authorities are unlikely to be decisive or helpful. Usually a solicitor will not be regarded as negligent if he makes a mistake as a result of acting in accordance with the general practice of the profession: Simmons v Pennington & Son [1955] 1 WLR 183; Hondon Development Ltd & Anor v Powerise Investments Ltd & Ors (HCA 1208A/98, unreported). See also Duty in contract; Duty in tort; Duty of care; Error of judgment. Negligence - The standard that is expected from a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs: Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Exch 781. It is a question of fact whether the defendant has failed to show reasonable care in the particular circumstances: Williams v Mersey Docks and Harbour Board [1954] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 221 (CA). The law lays down the general rules which determine the standard of care which has to be attained, and it is for the court to apply that legal standard of care to its findings of fact so as to decide whether the defendant has attained that standard: Qualcast (Wolverhampton) Ltd v Haynes [1959] AC 743, 2 All ER 38 (HL). The legal standard is objective; it is not that of the defendant himself, but that which might be expected from a person of ordinary prudence (Wong Kit Chun v Wishing Long Hong [2000] 4 HKC 748 (CA)), or person of ordinary care and skill (Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 QBD 503 (CA)), engaged in the type of activity in which the defendant was engaged (Chui Yu Yauv Chan Pak Luk t/a Fung Lok Plastic Factory [1987] 3 HKC 339 (DC)). However, the court when setting out the standard may balance the public interest with that of individual citizen and in those circumstances, the standard is that which is reasonably to be demanded in the circumstances: Daborn v Bath Tramways Motor Co Ltd [1946] 2 All ER 333. The standard of care may not necessarily be reduced because of other physical incapacities: Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980] 1 All ER 7, 1 WLR 823. See also Breach of duty of care; Duty of care; Negligence; Proximity. 對合理的人在有關的情況所預期的謹慎程度。 刑法 - 假設的合理人在相同的情況會行使的謹慎、技巧或合理預見。因違反對他人的責任（相當於可構成罪行的疏忽或嚴重疏忽）而導致該他人死亡的人，即屬誤殺：Andrews v DPP [1937] AC 576, 2 All ER 552。所需的疏忽程度較民事法律責任所需的為高：Akerele v R [1943] AC 255, 1 All ER 367。所需的謹慎標準會根據有關罪行的性質變更，包括任何法定定義。例如根據《道路交通條例》（第374章）第38(1)條，任何人在道路上不小心駕駛汽車，即屬犯「不小心駕駛」罪；及任何人在道路上駕駛車輛時，如「無適當的謹慎及專注，或未有合理顧及其他使用該道路的人」，即屬本條所指的不小心駕駛：第38(2)條。另見 Careless driving; Criminal negligence; Manslaughter。 法律執業者 - 律師在代表當事人承擔進行工作時履行的謹慎、技巧或努力的水平或內容。主要的原則是律師須展示有合理足夠能力及努力的律師的謹慎標準及技巧。因此，如有關的律師在有關情況已作出律師專業的審慎成員會履行的工作，則可免除他對當事人的責任：Pomay Investments Ltd & Ors v Edward Wong Finance Co Ltd [1981] HKLR 454。不會預期律師須知悉一切法律，也不會按照由特別非常仔細及正直的執業者展示的標準判定有關的律師：Kensland Realty Ltd v Whale View Investment Ltd [2002] 1 HKC 243 (終審法院)。不會預期律師毫無錯誤，此外，就任何以正常有足夠能力及小心的執業者的技巧及謹慎所不能避免的風險而言，不會視律師為他當事人的保證人。在裁斷律師是否犯疏忽罪時，法院須引用被理解為正常有足夠能力的律師的標準。這是根據有關案件個別情況的事實作出的裁斷，而有關案例相當不可能具決定性或有用。如有關的律師按照一般的專業守則行事後犯錯，則通常不會視律師有疏忽：Simmons v Pennington & Son [1955] 1 WLR 183; Hondon Development Ltd & Anor v Powerise Investments Ltd & Ors (高院民事訴訟，98年第1208A號，未經彙報)。另見 Duty in contract; Duty in tort; Duty of care; Error of judgment。 疏忽 - 預期合理的人按照一般規限人事行為的考慮因素而達到的標準: Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Exch 781。被告是否在個別情況未能顯示所需的合理謹慎是事實的問題：Williams v Mersey Docks and Harbour Board [1954] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 221 (英國上訴法院)。法律規定判斷須被遵守的謹慎標準的一般規則，而法院須就事實的裁斷引用有關的謹慎標準，以便決定被告是否已達到該標準：Qualcast (Wolverhampton) Ltd v Haynes [1959] AC 743, 2 All ER 38 (上議院)。法律的標準是客觀的；並非被告自己的標準，而是可預期一般審慎的人 (Wong Kit Chun v Wishing Long Hong [2000] 4 HKC 748 (上訴法庭))，或一般謹慎及有技巧的人 (Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 QBD 503 (英國上訴法院))，或被告所從事活動的類型的人(Chui Yu Yauv Chan Pak Luk t/a Fung Lok Plastic Factory [1987] 3 HKC 339 (地方法院)) 達到的標準。但法院在列出標準時，可平衡公眾利益和個別市民的利益，而在有關情況，所需的標準是在有關情況所合理要求的標準：Daborn v Bath Tramways Motor Co Ltd [1946] 2 All ER 333。不應因其他身體上的無行為能力而減少謹慎的標準：Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980] 1 All ER 7, 1 WLR 823。Breach of duty of care; Duty of care; Negligence; Proximity。 |
| 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。