| 单词 | Strict liability |
| 释义 | 嚴格法律責任 Liability for damage without the need to prove negligence or fault. This rule was developed in England in the law of tort by the case of Rylands v Fletcher (1866) LR 3 HL 330, a person who for his own purposes brings onto his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his peril and, if he fails to do so, is answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. The liability for a breach of the rule is strict but it cannot be equated with absolute liability; strict liability only arises if the defendant knows or ought reasonably to foresee that the thing in question might, if it escapes, cause damage notwithstanding that the defendant has exercised all due care to prevent the escape occurring: Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 AC 264, [1994] 1 All ER 53 (HL); ACL Electronics (HK) Ltd v Bulmer Ltd [1992] 1 HKC 133 (CA). Offences of strict liability can be found in both criminal and civil law and can be prescribed by statute: for example, Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance (Cap 509) s 42. See also Absolute liability; Rylands v Fletcher, rule in; Vicarious liability. 不需證明疏忽或過失的損害法律責任。此原則由英國侵權法的Rylands v Fletcher (1866) LR 3 HL 330一案發展而成，即一人為他本身的目的在其土地帶來、收集及備存任何相當可能作出損害的東西，如該東西逸漏，則該人須後果自負，但如他未能妥善處理，則須對所有由有關的逸漏導致的自然後果損害負責。違反此原則的法律責任嚴格，但不可等同絕對法律責任；儘管被告人已作出一切適當的謹慎防止發生逸漏，但如被告人知道或應合理地預見有關的東西如逸漏便可導致損害，則才會產生嚴格法律責任：Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 AC 264, [1994] 1 All ER 53（上議院）; ACL Electronics (HK) Ltd v Bulmer Ltd [1992] 1 HKC 133（上訴法庭）。嚴格法律責任罪行可見於刑法及民法，及可由法規訂明：例如《職業安全及健康條例》（第509章）第42條。另見 Absolute liability; Rylands v Fletcher, rule in; 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。