Unit 4: Tort of Negligence 侵权法之疏忽

Issue 问题

Does Mr. Lee owe Mrs. Smith a duty of care?

李先生是否对史密斯夫人负有注意义务？

Principle 原则

The "neighbour principle" from Donoghue v Stevenson is applicable. This principle establishes that one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen to injure their "neighbour." A neighbour is anyone who is closely and directly affected by one's act.

Donoghue v Stevenson案中的"邻人原则"适用。该原则规定，个人必须采取合理的注意，避免可合理预见的会伤害其"邻人"的作为或不作为。"邻人"是指任何因其行为而受到密切和直接影响的人。

Application 应用

Mr. Lee owes Mrs. Smith a duty of care because she is a reasonably foreseeable plaintiff. Mrs. Smith, being on the road close to Mr. Lee, would be directly affected by his actions (driving while distracted), especially given that he was distracted while driving.

李先生对史密斯夫人负有注意义务，因为她是可合理预见的原告。史密斯夫人在靠近李先生的路上，会直接受到他行为（分心驾驶）的影响，特别是考虑到他开车时分心了。

Conclusion 结论

Yes, Mr. Lee owes Mrs. Smith a duty of care.

是的，李先生对史密斯夫人负有注意义务。

Issue 问题

Has the Smith Golf Course breached its duty of care to Mr. Lee?

史密斯高尔夫球场是否违反了对李先生的注意义务？

Principle 原则

Under Section 5B(1) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), a person is not negligent in failing to take precautions against a risk of harm unless: (a) the risk was foreseeable, (b) the risk was not insignificant, and (c) a reasonable person in the person's position would have taken those precautions.

根据《2002年民事责任法》（新南威尔士州）第5B(1)条，除非：(a)风险是可预见的，(b)风险并非微不足道，以及(c)处于此人位置的合理人士会采取那些预防措施，否则一个人未能采取预防措施对抗伤害风险不构成疏忽。

Section 5B(2) requires consideration of: (a) probability of harm (Bolton v Stone), (b) likely seriousness of harm (Paris v Stepney Borough Council), (c) burden of taking precautions, and (d) social utility of the activity.

第5B(2)条要求考虑：(a)伤害概率(Bolton v Stone)，(b)伤害可能的严重性(Paris v Stepney Borough Council)，(c)采取预防措施的负担，以及(d)活动的社会效用。

Application 应用

Applying Bolton v Stone, the probability of harm was very low - only 5-10 balls had escaped in 10 years despite the golf course being the largest in Sydney. The fence was already 15 meters high, showing significant precautions had been taken. Building a higher fence would be a considerable burden in terms of time, effort, and cost to the golf course.

应用Bolton v Stone案，伤害概率非常低 - 尽管高尔夫球场是悉尼最大的，但10年内只有5-10个球逃过围栏。围栏已经有15米高，表明已采取了重大预防措施。建造更高的围栏对高尔夫球场而言将是时间、精力和成本方面的重大负担。

Conclusion 结论

No, the Smith Golf Course has not breached its duty of care to Mr. Lee. The risk was extremely small, and the existing precautions were reasonable given the low probability of harm occurring.

不，史密斯高尔夫球场没有违反对李先生的注意义务。风险极小，考虑到伤害发生的低概率，现有的预防措施是合理的。

Issue 问题

Has causation been established between Mrs. Smith's breach of duty and Mr. Lee's damage?

史密斯夫人违反义务与李先生的损害之间的因果关系是否成立？

Principle 原则

Section 5D(1)(a) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) requires that the negligence was a necessary condition of the occurrence of the harm ("factual causation").

《2002年民事责任法》（新南威尔士州）第5D(1)(a)条要求疏忽是损害发生的必要条件（"事实因果关系"）。

The common law test is the "but for" test: Would the harm have occurred "but for" the defendant's negligent conduct?

普通法测试是"若非"测试：若非被告的疏忽行为，损害是否会发生？

Application 应用

Applying the "but for" test: But for Mrs. Smith's distraction and driving across the center of the road, would the collision have occurred? The answer is clearly no. Mr. Lee was driving properly - in a straight line, within the speed limit, with headlights on. The collision occurred only because Mrs. Smith crossed the center line while distracted by her phone.

应用"若非"测试：若非史密斯夫人分心和越过道路中心线，碰撞是否会发生？答案显然是不会。李先生在正确驾驶 - 直线行驶，未超速，开着车灯。碰撞发生仅是因为史密斯夫人在被手机分心时越过了中心线。

Conclusion 结论

Yes, causation is established. Mrs. Smith's breach of duty (distracted driving) directly caused the collision with Mr. Lee's car.

是的，因果关系成立。史密斯夫人违反义务（分心驾驶）直接导致了与李先生车辆的碰撞。

Issue 问题

Which of the losses suffered by Mrs. Smith are within Mr. Lee's scope of liability?

史密斯夫人遭受的哪些损失在李先生的责任范围内？

Principle 原则

Section 5D(1)(b) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) requires that it is appropriate for the scope of the defendant's liability to extend to the harm caused ("scope of liability"). Defendant will not be liable for damage considered too remote.

《2002年民事责任法》（新南威尔士州）第5D(1)(b)条要求被告的责任范围适当地延伸至所造成的损害（"责任范围"）。被告不对被认为过于遥远的损害负责。

The common law test is reasonable foreseeability: Was the type of damage reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the defendant's carelessness?

普通法测试是合理可预见性：损害类型是否作为被告疏忽的后果而合理可预见？

Application 应用

The $50,000 damage to the house is clearly within Mr. Lee's scope of liability as it is a direct and foreseeable consequence of his negligent driving.

5万美元的房屋损失显然在李先生的责任范围内，因为这是他疏忽驾驶的直接和可预见后果。

The temporary relocation costs ($500 per week) are also reasonably foreseeable - it is natural that Mrs. Smith would need alternative accommodation while her house is repaired.

临时搬迁费用（每周500美元）也是合理可预见的 - 史密斯夫人在房屋维修期间需要替代住所是自然的。

However, the burglary and shooting at the temporary accommodation are too remote from Mr. Lee's negligent driving. These events involve an independent third party criminal act that breaks the chain of causation. It would not be reasonably foreseeable that Mrs. Smith would be burgled and shot as a consequence of Mr. Lee's negligent driving.

然而，在临时住所发生的入室盗窃和枪击事件与李先生的疏忽驾驶相距太远。这些事件涉及独立第三方的犯罪行为，打破了因果关系链。史密斯夫人会因李先生的疏忽驾驶而遭到入室盗窃和枪击是不合理可预见的。

Conclusion 结论

The $50,000 damage to the house and the temporary relocation rent are within Mr. Lee's scope of liability. The medical bills and inability to work due to the burglary and shooting are not reasonably foreseeable and hence too remote.

房屋的5万美元损失和临时搬迁租金在李先生的责任范围内。由于入室盗窃和枪击导致的医疗费用和无法工作不是合理可预见的，因此过于遥远。

Issue 问题

Has Mrs. Smith/Smart Investments breached their duty of care to Mr. Lee through negligent misstatement? What defenses might be available?

史密斯夫人/Smart Investments是否通过疏忽性失实陈述违反了对李先生的注意义务？可能有哪些抗辩？

Principle 原则

For negligent misstatement, a special relationship must exist (Hedley Byrne v Heller). The Barwick test requires: (1) Assumption of responsibility, (2) Serious/business nature, (3) Intended reliance, (4) Reasonable reliance.

对于疏忽性失实陈述，必须存在特殊关系(Hedley Byrne v Heller)。巴威克测试要求：(1)承担责任，(2)严肃/商业性质，(3)预期依赖，(4)合理依赖。

Section 5O of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) applies to professionals, who are not liable if they acted in a manner widely accepted by peer professional opinion as competent professional practice.

《2002年民事责任法》（新南威尔士州）第5O条适用于专业人士，如果他们的行为方式被同行专业意见广泛接受为称职的专业实践，则不承担责任。

A disclaimer may provide a defense as in Hedley Byrne v Heller.

免责声明可能提供抗辩，如Hedley Byrne v Heller案。

Application 应用

A special relationship exists: Mrs. Smith assumed responsibility as a professional investment advisor; the advice was of a serious financial nature; Mrs. Smith knew Mr. Lee intended to rely on her advice for retirement planning; and it was reasonable for Mr. Lee to rely on an investment professional when he had no experience himself.

存在特殊关系：史密斯夫人作为专业投资顾问承担责任；建议具有严肃的财务性质；史密斯夫人知道李先生打算依赖她的建议进行退休规划；李先生自己没有经验，依赖投资专业人士是合理的。

Mrs. Smith breached her duty by basing advice on a newspaper article without further research, which would not meet the standard of "competent professional practice" under s.5O. This would be particularly true since Mr. Lee made it clear this was his only significant asset for retirement.

史密斯夫人仅基于报纸文章而未进行进一步研究给出建议，违反了她的义务，这不符合第5O条下"称职的专业实践"标准。尤其是因为李先生明确表示这是他退休的唯一重要资产。

However, the disclaimer may provide a defense if it was clear and specific. The effectiveness of the disclaimer would depend on its wording and prominence, similar to Hedley Byrne v Heller.

然而，如果免责声明清晰明确，可能提供抗辩。免责声明的有效性取决于其措辞和显著性，类似于Hedley Byrne v Heller案。

Conclusion 结论

Mrs. Smith and Smart Investments have likely breached their duty of care through negligent misstatement, as they failed to conduct proper research before giving investment advice. The disclaimer may provide a defense, but its effectiveness would depend on its specific wording and whether it was reasonable for Mr. Lee to still rely on the advice despite the disclaimer.

史密斯夫人和Smart Investments可能通过疏忽性失实陈述违反了注意义务，因为他们在提供投资建议前未进行适当研究。免责声明可能提供抗辩，但其有效性取决于其具体措辞，以及尽管有免责声明，李先生依赖该建议是否合理。