孫春秋 訴 陳仕均及另二人

HCPI 492/2006

香港特別行政區

高等法院原訟法庭

民事司法管轄權

高院傷亡訴訟2006年第492號

----------------------

----------------------

----------------------

判案書

----------------------

序言

1.  原告在2006年6月14日展開本訴訟，要求被告人支付他在2003年10月31日受僱期間受傷而致的損害賠償。

2.  本訴訟開展時，共有三名被告人。原告人其後終止針對第三被告人的申索。故此，至本訴訟審訊日，本訴訟僅針對第一及二被告人。第一被告人並無聘請律師代表，親自出庭應訊，而第二被告人則缺席。

背景事實

3.  與訟雙方對本訴訟所涉的大部分背景事實，都沒有爭議。

4.  原告人在2003年時年約44歲。他受僱為第一被告人的一名釘板工人。第一被告人承接了西貢泥涌村的兩間村屋的建造工程。第二被告人是該項工程的總承建商。

5.  正在興建的村屋的外牆位置，在事發前圍上了竹建的棚架。2003年10 月31日，原告人按第一被告人的要求，站於搭在棚架上的一塊木板，進行釘板的工作。當時，原告人並未佩帶安全帶；工作處所亦無設置安全網或其他安全設備。

6.  在原告人工作期間，他站立的木板忽然翻動，他因此失去平衡，連同木板從棚架上跌到約8米下的地面因而受傷。

本訴訟的爭議點

7.  原告人倚賴的訴因是兩被告人：-

(a)    違反處所佔用人的一般謹慎責任；

(b)   違反僱傭合約的隱含條款（僅針對第一被告人）；

(c)    違反疏忽法中的謹慎責任；

(d)   違反法定責任。

8.  第一被告人存檔的抗辯書，提出以下的抗辯理據：-

(1) 原告人是一名有多年釘板工作經驗的釘板師傅；

(2) 第二被告人並無提供任何安全設備。

9.  第二被告人存檔的抗辯書則指：-

(a)    他已提供安全的工作地方及設備；

(b)   原告人須負上共分疏忽的責任。

10.  就前第7(d)段所述的訴因：-

(1) 第一被告人因上述意外，在2004年5月14日被裁定違反了香港法例第509章《職業安全及健康條例》第6(1)；6(2)(a) 及 6(3)條（僱主須確保員工的安全及健康）；

(2) 第二被告人因上述意外，在2004年5月14日被裁定違反了香港法例第59I章《建築地盤（安全）規例》第38B(1)，68(1)(a) 及 68(2)(g) 條（防止墮下）；

11.  原告方在審訊時傳召了原告人及一位王添群先生作供，而辯方則因第二被告人缺席，祗有第一被告人自己作供。

12.  原告人的證供，基本上等同前第4至6段所述。王先生則是在2003年期間，曾僱用原告人的另一名釘板承建商（他自己亦是釘板工人）。

13.  原告人及王先生在作供時坦然承認，他們在高空工作時，都不會佩帶安全帶。而以他們所知，從事釘板工作的工人，絕大部分都沒有使用安全設備（尤其是佩帶安全帶）的習慣。

14.  原告人亦承認，在他從事釘板工作的6、7年時間，他從未佩帶安全帶。他聲稱這是因為他的僱主從未提供這種設備。但在本席詢問時，原告人並不否認，安全帶的價值僅為數十元，亦可從市面上的店鋪容易購得。

相關的法律原則

15.  有關原告人賴以提出本訴訟的各種訴因的法律原則，早已在為數不少的判案書中闡述。因此，本席僅引述下列案例的判詞。

16.  有關疏忽及僱傭合約隱含條款的法律原則，原訟法庭在Nguyen Van Vinh v. 張英建築工程有限公司及另一人，HCPI 1173/2004（2008年5月27日）一案中的“判案書”（中譯本）說：-

“24.   雖然裁決每宗案件須視乎其案情而定，但本席認為高等法院法官施偉民在 Keung Wai Ming v Yew Chow Anr. (1987) A 3270 一案中所作的評語甚有幫助，本席亦將之應用於案情非常相似的Mo Po v Yat Fai Engineering Ltd., HCPI 405/2005 一案（未經報導案件，2006年4月10日）。本席在該案中參考Charlesworth and Percy on Negligence一書第781頁10-44段：

‘提供保護設施或衣物(不論有指示、警告或命令與否)如果工作的性質是屬於任何合理僱主均會在工人工作期間提供保護設施或衣物，提供保護設施或衣物的責任就存在，而採取合理措施以確保工人使用該等設施或衣物的責任同樣存在。這項責任的大小視乎幾項因素而定: (i) 受傷的風險；(ii) 潛在損傷的嚴重性；(iii) 提供保護的困難度；(iv) 有沒有保護衣物可以提供；(v) 擺放這些保護衣物與僱員工作地點相隔的距離；以及(vi) 僱員的技術和經驗。’

此外，上訴法庭法官祁彥輝(其當時官階)在Wong Wai Ming v The Hospital Authority, CACV 86/2001一案，提及Reid勳爵在Wagon Mound一案中頒下的判詞：

‘8. 僱主對其屬下員工的安全負有合理的謹慎責任。如果僱員受僱從事某一項較為危險的工作，僱主所承擔的謹慎責任就較大，但如果僱主未能徹底除去工作的危險性，他必須採取合理的防範措施盡可能減低工人受傷的風險:參考Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence，第 9版，第10-83段。但是僱主並不須採取合理的防範措施以除去其屬下員工所面對的每一項風險。Reid 勳爵在Wagon Mound (No.2) [1967] AC 617一案第 642E-643A段，道出有關原則的經典聲言：

‘...這並不是說，無論情況如何，忽略任何低程度的...風險都是有理可據的。任何合理的人士均祇會在具有某些有效原因的情況下才忽略這項風險，譬如說去除這項風險需付出相當昂貴的費用。他會衡量風險的大小和去除風險的難度。...一般的原則是如果某人知道或應該知道所涉的風險是實在的風險，而非只是一種不會影響合理人士的思想的可能性，但他沒有採取任何步驟以去除這項風險，則他必定是疏忽。...如果風險屬於低，而任何合理的人士(他會小心處理其疏忽行為所引起的安全問題)亦認為在此情況下理應忽略這項風險，則不採取任何步驟以去除這實在的風險是有理可據的。’”

17.  而有關處所佔用人一般謹慎責任的法律原則，可參看上訴法庭在陳保佳v. 吳滿森及另一人，CACV 51/2007（2007年11月30 日）的“判案書”：-

“16.  就處所佔用人的介定，《佔用人法律責任條例》並沒有列明。根據案例，如果一名人士對相關處所有足夠程度的控制以致他可以確保處所之安全，及意會到他在這方面的過失可能會引致他人的傷害，他便可以被視為處所佔用人。他對該處所的控制並不需要是完全或單獨的控制。在很多情況下，工程的判頭也可以在事實上有足夠的控制而引致他必須承擔《佔用人法律責任條例》下之責任。(參考Clerk and Lindsell on Torts，19th ed，paragraph 12-10)。在香港以往也有不少案例裁定幾位工程的承判者同時就同一地盤擔當這方面的責任: Ma Hui Tung Kuk v Cheong Hing Ha Kee Construction [1992] 2 HKC 391; Wong Chi shing v Argos Engineering and Heavy Industries Company Limited [1993] 1 HKC 598; Tam Hon Leung v Ng Wai Hing [2006] 1 HKLRD 923.”

18.  有關法定責任的法律原則是：-

(a)    違反法定責任可構成普通法中的一項訴因；

(b)   但違反法定責任事實上可否構成一項訴因，視乎立法的意旨而定；

(c)    除前(b)分段外，申索人須確立：-

(1) 他蒙受的損害屬相關法例保障範圍內的同類損害；

(2) 申索人屬相關法例保障的人士；

(3) 被告人確曾違反相關法例；

(4) 有關損害是因被告人違反法定責任所致。

(Clerk & Lindsell on Torts (2006年) 第19版，第9-04段)。

19.  如前所述，第一及第二被告人分別被裁定曾干犯的法例，屬鼓勵及/或保障工業安全法例的類別。違反該類別法例，足以作為因違反法定責任而興訟的訴因：Clerk & Lindsell，第9-16段。

被告人的法律責任

20.  基於前第4至6及8段所述的涉案事實，及前第16段所述的法律論據，本席判定，第一被告人因違反：-

(1) 僱傭合約的隱含條款；

(2) 疏忽法中的合理謹慎責任，

而須負上支付損害賠償的責任。

21.  基於第4至6，8及10段所述的涉案事實，及前第18及19段所述的法律論據，本席亦判定，第一及第二被告人亦因違反法定責任而須負上支付損害賠償的責任。

22.  第一被告人提出的兩項抗辯理據中的其中一項是，第二被告人作為總承建商，並無提供任何安全設備（見前第8(2) 段）。相對於原告人的申索而言，這並不足以被視為一項有效的抗辯理據。

共分疏忽

23.  至於他提出的另一項抗辯理據，性質等同第二被告人提出的其中一項抗辯理據（見前第8(1) 及9(b) 段）。雖然第二被告人並無出庭應訊，而因此並無將任何證據呈堂，但因第一被告人提出等類的抗辯理據，本席仍須就此項理據，在以下各段，作出分析及討論。

24.  如前第13及14段所述，原告人並不否認，他從沒有佩帶安全帶進行工作的習慣。

25.  有關共分疏忽的法律原則，多次列載在不同的案例及法律典籍。Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence（2006年）第11版這樣說：-

“[Contributory negligence] means that there has been some act or omission on the claimant’s part which has materially contributed to the damage caused and is of such a nature that may properly be described as negligence.  For these purposes ‘negligence’ is used in the sense of careless conduct rather than in its sense of breach of duty … It connotes a failure by the claimant to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property …”（上文獲強調之處，由本席後加）（第3-03段）。

26.  另一方面，Charlesworth & Percy 亦說：-

“The fact that the claimant has to take a risk does not amount to contributory negligence on his part if the need to take the risk has been created by the negligence or breach of statutory duty of the defendant and it is one which a reasonably prudent man in the claimant’s position would take.”（上文獲強調之處，由本席後加）（第3-06段）。

27.  共分疏忽的法律原則被應用於僱傭範疇時，與上述一般情況的原則，略有差異。Charlesworth & Percy說：-

“Some modifications, however, occurs in the case of employees who suffer accidents in the course of their employment as a result of their employer’s breach of statutory duty …”（第3-64段）；

“… The view was taken that ‘some carelessness or inattention to his own safety’ was not contributory negligence and that ‘the jury have to draw the line where mere thoughtlessness or inadvertence or forgetfulness ceases and where negligence begins …

In effect a different standard of care was imposed than if the court had been considering the employee as someone for whose want of care towards a third party the employer was vicariously liable.” （第3-65段）；

“Similar thinking persisted after 1945 [that is, the year of enactment of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945] … It was said that the courts must be careful not to emasculate the protection given by the [legislations] … and that the workman must not be judged too harshly for a momentary error, where there was continuing breach of the law by his employers.” （上文獲強調之處，由本席後加）（第 3-66段）；

“Nevertheless, as the Court of Appeal has pointed out, there is no principle of law which requires that even when there has been a breach of statutory duty in circumstances where the intention of a statute is to give protection against folly on the part of an employee, there cannot be a finding of contributory negligence to the extent of 100 per cent against the claimant.” （上文獲強調之處，由本席後加）（第3-67段）。

28.  違反法定責任的法律原則被應用於僱傭範疇時，亦與前第26段所述的相同：Charlesworth & Percy，第11-64至11-68段。

29.  綜合以上各段所載的法理後，Charlesworth & Percy說：-

“… a distinction has to be drawn between the situation where there has been momentary inattention on the part of an injured employee and the conscious acceptance of a risk by an employee.  If the employee is skilled and the precaution which would have avoided the accident complained of is a simple one, it has been said that the claimant can properly be required to bear the greater responsibility.”（上文獲強調之處，由本席後加）（第11-66段）。

30.  在考慮受傷僱員是否祗犯有“一時不慎”抑或是“有意識地接受風險”時，法庭應顧及僱員身處的實際工作環境：Charlesworth & Percy，第11-64段。

31.  香港法院的案例顯示，香港適用的法律原則，與上述各段所載的，並無不同。

32.  雖然兩地的法院採納的法律原則相同，但在下述的案例中，香港法院與英國法院在判定僱員的作為，究竟屬“一時不慎”抑或是“有意識地接受風險”時，卻似乎不時達致極其不同的結論。

33.  以下的英國案例，源出於Charlesworth & Percy 第3-70及3-72段的腳註中（在以下段落，依時序列出）。

34.  英國上訴法庭在1952年的一宗上訴（Cork v. Kirby Maclean Ltd. [1952] 2 All ER 402），涉及一名患有痙攣病的僱員（職 位為油漆工），他從未將該病患通知他的僱主。在一項翻新工程中，他的僱主並未依法例提供工作平台，而僅竪立一個棚架。該僱員爬上棚架，在離地約二十尺進行油漆時病發，因而跌落地上喪生。原審法官裁定僱主負上全部責任。他認為僱主未能證明，即使僱主沒有違例，仍會發生該致命意外。上訴法庭推翻原判，認為僱員須付上部分責任。判詞的相關部分說：-

“In the present case there was no need to search for another cause [of accident]… It was there, as DONOVAN, J., found.  …it was a fit which caused Mr Cork to fall … The next question which arises … was whether, if there had been a proper guard-rail, or if the platform had been wider … the accident would have resulted in a fall to the ground … I do not know the question of onus of proof really comes into this case as between the two conflicting contentions.  Two causes were in operation – one the fit which came on …, and the other the fact that the defendants had not complied with their statutory duties.  If two people had met after the death of Mr Cork and discussed the accident, … one might well have said: ‘It was his own fault …’.  The other person might have said:

‘They ought to have had guard-rail there …’.  In one sense both those views may be said to be right.

… [Mr Cork] ought to have told his employers.  However anxious [Mr Cork] was to get work, he owed a duty to his employers and to his fellow workmen as well as to himself …”（上文獲強調之處，由本席後加）(第405 至406頁)；

“It often happens that each of the parties at fault can truly say to the other: ‘But for your fault, it would not have happened.’  In such a case both faults are in fact causes of the damage.

In this case, on the facts, I am clearly of opinion that both faults were causes of the damage.  … There remains the question of remoteness …  In this case I think the employers’ fault was not too remote a cause …

I take the view also that the man’s fault was not too remote a cause.  … He had indeed been warned of the very thing which befell him.  In any case, according to ordinary plain common sense, it was one of the causes of his death’（上文獲強調之處，由本席後加）（第407至408頁）。”

35.  上訴法庭在該上訴中，亦提及前第25至27段所述的法律原則（參看判詞中第404至405頁）。

36.  英國上訴法庭在1954年的另一宗上訴（Harrison v. Metropolitan – Vickers Electrical Co. Ltd. [1954] 1 WLR 324），涉及一間鑄造工廠。受傷僱員在廠內負責運送鎔化的鑄液。他的工作有時需要拉動容器，向後行進。他使用的通道的一端有一個凹坑，在受傷僱員的其中一次運送過程中，他失足跌入凹坑，部分溶液觸及他的面部，他因而受傷。他的僱主違反法例，並未將通道圍上圍欄。

37.  原審法官裁定僱員亦須負責共分疏忽責任。上訴法庭駁回與訟雙方提出的上訴。雖然其中兩位上訴法庭法官都不認同原審法官就共分疏忽所作的判決，但他們裁定，由於該判決屬原訴法庭對事實的裁決，不應在上訴時被推翻。

38.  英國上訴法庭在1962年的上訴（McMath v. Rimmer Brothers (Liverpool) Ltd. [1962] 1 WLR 1），涉及一名資深年長僱員。原告人因緊急維修工作而須攀爬到高處工作。守候在長梯底負責穩固長梯的員工，因其他工作而忽略這項職責。原告人雖然知悉此點，仍爬下長梯。他因長梯倒下而從高處墮下受傷。

39.  原審法官裁定僱主違反上述穩固長梯的法定責任，但他拒絕裁定原告須負共分疏忽責任。

40.  上訴法庭在更改有關共分疏忽責任的原判時說：-

“[The judge] … decided that there was no negligence on the part of the defendants and no negligence on the part of the plaintiff, but that there was breach of statutory duty on the part of the defendants, and that they were solely responsible for the accident …

[The judge] did not specifically make any finding on … whether the plaintiff had himself committed a breach of the regulations.  The judgement however implies a negative answer to that question.

…

… by virtue of regulation 4 there was a breach of [statutory] duty by the plaintiff …

There being both a breach of duty by the defendants and a breach of duty by the plaintiff, how should the responsibility be allocated or apportioned?

… If the answer to that question is that in substance and reality the accident was solely due to the fault of the plaintiff … he is disentitled to recover …

In the instant case the facts show that the plaintiff was to some extent the author of his own wrong, but it cannot be said that the defendants’ breach of duty consisted of and was co-extensive with the plaintiff’s …  There was the additional and independent element that when the time came for a person to be stationed at the base of the ladder to prevent slipping, … [he] was absent and not available …

Accordingly, … the damages will be reduced by half …”（第5至7頁。）

41.  英國樞密院在1973年的上訴（Westwood v. Post Office [1974] AC 1），涉及一名受僱於郵務署的技術員。該署的職員，都有一個在辦公期間到天台休息的習慣。事發當日，往天台的正常通道被鎖上，但旁邊的另一通道則仍可使用。該通道的門外寫上：“注意：祗供授權人員使用”。當休息完畢，死者與同事使用同一通道回辦公室，但在途中踏中通道內的一道活板門，墮下死亡。

42.  原審法庭裁定被告人須負上全部責任，但上訴法庭推翻該裁決，裁定死者敗訴。樞密院以三比二大多數裁定死者並無共分責任，回復他勝訴的原判。

43.  就共分疏忽一點，屬大多數的法官所持的意見是：-

“The first claim which the plaintiffs made against the respondents was that the accident was caused by their breach of a statutory duty to provide a safe floor for the deceased …”;

“… I would hold that the trap door formed part of the floor in office premises, and that in failing to maintain it in a safe condition the defendants were in breach of their statutory duties. …”;

“There remains the question of contributory negligence.  The Court of Appeal … found that the deceased had been guilty of contributory negligence; they would have apportioned his liability at 80 per cent. …”;

“… I cannot see that the fact that a man is a trespasser has any bearing whatever on what he may or may not foresee as possibly arising to his hurt …

On the second ground relied on by the Court of Appeal [that is, by going into the room in disregard of the notice [the deceased] deliberately exposed himself to such dangers as might be there], I would say … that it requires … a somewhat speculative view of the facts.  The notice said nothing about danger.  On the contrary, its terms insinuated that the room was safe enough for the authorized attendant …”（上文獲強調之處，由本席後加）(第12及14至16頁)。

44.  另方面，屬少數的法官所持的意見則是：-

“… I accept that the fact that the deceased was a trespasser is not in itself enough to make him guilty of contributory negligence.  But every person is bound to use reasonable care for his own safety; and I agree with the Court of Appeal that the notice on the door was such that any reasonable person would suppose that there might be some danger therein to others than ‘the authorized attendant’.  … Even if there can be read into it a subtle insinuation that the room was safe enough for the authorized attendant, the collorary is that it was not safe enough for others …

… I would apportion fault as to … 20 per cent to the deceased” （上文獲強調之處，由本席後加）(第10至11頁)。

45.  其他類同的案例，包括蘇格蘭法庭在1993年判決的一宗案件（McIntyre v. Strathclyde Regional Council (1994) SLT 933）及英國上訴法庭在2001年判決的一案上訴（Parker v. PFC Flooring Supplies Ltd., 2001 EWCA Civ. 1533）。

46.  原告人提供了下列的香港案例。

47.  原訟法庭在2002年9月的一宗案件（Ng Wah Chun v. Cheng Wing Chung and Others, HCPI 164/2001），涉及一名資深的釘板工人。在工作過程中，僱主祗提供兩塊窄木條給他。當原告人站立在木條上工作，木條經受不起他的體重而斷裂，而原告人亦墮下受傷。

48.  “判案書”中有關共分疏忽責任的部分說：-

“The 1^st Defendant … said to [the Plaintiff] that should he spend time in building a platform, there would be ‘no need for you to work’. At that juncture 2 planks were found placed between an iron trestle … 4 inches wide and 2 inches thick. …”（第 5 段）；

“I am prepared to accept, … the Plaintiff's evidence that he was instructed by the 1^st Defendant to walk across the planks in order to gain access to the top of the formwork. …”（第10段）；

“The only equipment that the Plaintiff was provided were the 2 planks and he was instructed to use them.” （第11段）；

“… the Plaintiff admitted that he had 20 years' experience as a formworker and had sufficient knowledge of safety when working at height. …”（第14段）；

“Given my finding that the Plaintiff was merely provided with 2 planks as his means of access to the defective formwork, I find it difficult to attribute any fault on the part of the Plaintiff. I accept his evidence that he would be placing his job at risk should he defy the instructions of the 1^st Defendant.”（上文獲強調之處，由本席後加）（第16段）。

49.  原告人依賴的另一案例是原訟法庭在2003年10月的一宗判決（Yeung Tung Sang v Lam Jacqueline and Another, HCPI 827/2001）。原告人受僱為被告人的其中一名清潔工。事發當日，原告人兩腿橫跨站於摺梯上，正在清潔高掛的酒樓招牌。他當時身處酒樓門口的行人道上。期間，附近一對男女途人發生爭執。該對男女在互相推撞一番後，女方突然激動大叫，並衝向原告人方向，用手將長梯推倒，原告人因而受傷。

50.  原訟法庭裁定原告人的僱主因疏忽而須負上責任。“判案書”說：-

“Given the nature of the behaviour, the movement and distance between [the woman] and the man and the plaintiff, the risk of disturbance posed by the pushing and pulling and movement of [the woman] and man was reasonably foreseeable.  Further, given the design of the ladder that it had no brace to secure the position of the two sides, … the defendant had to take reasonable precaution to safeguard the plaintiff from falling.  It is not important that the ladder was toppled by a deliberate push by [the woman] as opposed to an accidental contact during their pushing and pulling.” （第30段）。

51.  有關共分疏忽責任方面，原訟法庭說：-

“I have found that the plaintiff ignored the commotion as he was concentrating on his work. It is quite understandable as his supervisor was somewhere around.” （第33段）。

52.  原訟法庭在2006年11月的一宗案件（Wong Kwun Sang v Yiu Woon Ming and Others, HCPI 633/2004），涉及另一名資深釘板工人。他在事發當日被指派執行電梯內糟的釘板工作。由於他獨自工作，意外的真正原因不明。但原告人被發現受傷倒卧在地面，極可能是從高處墮下所致。原訟法庭裁定，原告人未墮下前，應是站在一條木條上工作。

53.  就共分疏忽責任，“判案書”說：-

“In either position, the plaintiff could easily have lost his footing due to insufficient foothold and fallen to the bottom of the liftshaft.”（上文獲強調之處，由本席後加）（第13段）；

“It was submitted by the defendants that the plaintiff was a very experienced and skilled worker carrying out framework and who had attended safety training.  It was further suggested …the plaintiff would certainly have been aware of the risk and danger …”

“I do not accept that submission …

... where the plaintiff was not provided with proper and safe work platform with guard rails to work on when working at height of over two metres, the defendants can hardly be heard to say that the plaintiff had failed to reasonably take care of his own safety ...

It would appear that the only option open to the plaintiff, if that be an option, would be to quit the job.”（上文獲強調之處，由本席後加）（第77至79段）。

54.  除原告人提供的上述案例外，上訴法庭在2008年6月的另一宗上訴 (Leung Po Chun v. Yat Lee Booth – Construction Co., Ltd., CACV 399/2007), 涉及一名資深拆卸竹棚僱員。原告人在事發日率領工人到建築地盤拆卸竹棚。由於缺乏適當器具，原告人決定採取一個不安全的拆卸方法，因而受傷。

55.  上訴法庭推翻原訟法庭有關原告人須負共分疏忽責任的判決。上訴法庭指：-

“The occupation of a bamboo scaffolder is specialised and highly dangerous.  It requires scaffolders to work at great height…  The plaintiff as well as Mr Lee were dismantlers” (第11段);

“That which is significant in our judgment, and a matter which, with respect, the learned judge attached insufficient significance, was that the plaintiff should not have been left personally to improvise”（上文獲強調之處，由本席後加）(第31段);

“Accordingly, having left the employee in such an unenviable position, the defendants then claimed that the employee was guilty of contributory negligence because he had not fended for himself well enough.  Such a proposition has only to be stated to be rejected” (第36段)。

56.  上訴法庭上述的結論，與前述英國的案例中的案例（參看前第45段：McIntyre一案）達致的結論不同。蘇格蘭的法庭認為： -

“That it is the duty of employers to furnish their employees with adequate materials and resources for the performance of the work they are instructed to do is beyond question…

… On the other hand I consider that the [plaintiff] failed to have regard for his own safety in the way he proceeded to carry out the task…

The question remains, as focused by Lord Kissen in Anderson v Gaskell & Chambers: ‘Whose conduct caused the accident?’

In my opinion both parties contributed to the cause of the accident in this case…

… In my view one can only approach issues of this kind broadly.  The failure of the defendants to make available necessary equipment created the situation in which the [plaintiff] resorted to an unsafe method of working.  I cannot distinguish with any clarify between the contributory factors and I have come to the conclusion that each is equally responsible for the accident which happened.”（上文獲強調之處，由本席後加）(第937至938頁)。

（亦可參看前第34及35段Cork一案，及前第38段至40段McMath一 案）

57.  在前第45段所述的Parker一案，英國上訴法庭亦判定，在類似McIntyre一案的情況，50%的共分疏忽責任是正確的。上訴法庭說：-

“There was of course an issue as to contributory negligence before the judge, who apportioned blame in the proportion 50/50…” (第30段)；

“… The claimant’s actions constituted the type of situation frequently encountered where an employee, properly concerned to do his job and solve a problem in the interests of an employer, is insufficiently cautious in respect of his own safety…” (第 31段);

“In my view, an apportionment of 50/50 on a rough and ready basis was reasonable and there are no sufficient grounds for disturbing the judge’s finding.”（上文獲強調之處，由本席後加）(第32段)。

58.  在本訴訟：-

(1) 有充分的證據顯示，原告人沒有佩帶安全設備，並非“一時不慎”而是“有意識地接受不合理的風險” （參看前第13，14及24 至 29段）。首先，任何合理的人，都理應清楚知悉高空工作的危險性；

(2) 而且，原告人須使用的安全設備，並非難以取得的設備（參看前第14及26段）；

(3) 並無證據顯示，原告人堅持使用安全設備，會令他蒙受喪失工作或收入的風險（比對前第46至47及51段）。

59.  本席考慮過上列各段後，認定原告人應負25%的共分疏忽責任。

60.  原告人在其書面結案陳詞對損害賠償的數額，作出了詳細的闡述：-

“建議賠償額的計算

審訊前的損失連強積金利益

（病假期間：零入息）HK$22,800 x 27.5個月 x 1.05	=	HK$  658,350
（病假期滿至審訊，以月薪HK$6,000計算）
（HK$22,800 – HK$6,000） x 27.5 個月 x 1.05	=	HK$  485,100
	合共	HK$1,143,450

其它開支：HK$19,438

除了交通費開支，所有申索項目都有收據佐證。

原告人的治療期長達兩年之久，兩年內幾十次往返醫院的交通費HK$2,400是合理的開支。

痛苦賠償：HK$300,000

以下的參考案例，傷患及後遺痛楚與本案相若，但就治療期及病假而言，都比本案短，此外不同的是原告人需要接受手術。

(i)  Shah Nisar v Wai Kit Engineering Co. Ltd & Ors, HCPI No. 1092 of 2003, Sakhrani J (11 April 2005)

原告人從放置在樓梯上的平皮墮下，背部及臀部受傷，物理治療為期2.5個月，病假9個月，受傷後不能長時間站立，步行或坐，不能提重物，仍有背痛，不能參與活躍運動。痛苦賠償HK$300,000。

(ii) Yuen Siu v Lau Choi Har & Anor. HCPI No. 374 of 2002, Master S Cheung (3 June 2003)

原告人被一輛的士撞倒，左邊身體多處擦傷，脊椎一節受損，穿緊身衣３個月，物理治療為期６個月，病假８個月，受傷後不能長時間站立，步行或坐，不能提重物，仍有背痛。痛苦賠償HK$300,000。

(iii)    Ng Shing Kwai v Chan Yu Chuen & Ors, HCPI No. 923 of 2001, Master de Souza (7 September 2002)

原告人滑倒，右肩及背瘀傷，接受理治療，病假12個月，受傷後，肩、手、腳及腰部仍有痛楚。痛苦賠償HK$320,000。

未來的入息損失連強積金利益

（以月薪HK$6,000 計算；工作至60歲，以8年為乘算值）

（HK$22,800 – HK$6,000）x 8 x 12  =  HK$1,603,400  [原文錯誤；應為HK$1,612,800]

有關乘算值的參考案例：

(i)  原告人任職管理階層，審訊時47歲，預計工作至65 歲，乘算值是10

Leung Kwok Keung Johrakin v Leung Iu Wa [2004] 3 HKLRD 421

(ii) 原告人任職地盤雜工，審訊時47歲，預計工作至65 歲，算值是10

Li Wan Kei v Hyurdai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd.,

Suffiad J (6 March 2006)

損失謀生能力：HK$50,000

即使原告人任職較輕省的工作，他左手腕的痛楚及不能超過40分鐘坐立的活動限制，絕對會影響他在勞動市場的謀生能力。

Moeliker v A. Reyrolle & Co. Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 132”

61.  就損害賠償數額，第一被告人並沒有存檔任何文件，提出異議。第二被告人雖曾提出異議，卻並未出庭應訊。

62.  前第11段提及，原告人及王先生曾出庭作供。本席信納他們就原告人受傷前的每月平均收入的證供。

63.  基於以上各點，本席判定兩被告須支付下列的損害賠償：-

(a) 因“痛苦、痛楚及失去生活樂趣”的損害賠償：$300,000；

(b)    病假期間的收入損失：$658,350；

(c)    病假後至審訊前的收入損失：$485,100；

(d)   未來的收入損失：$1,603,400  [原文錯誤；應為HK$1,612,800]；

(e)    喪失工作能力的損害賠償：$50,000；

(f) 專項賠償：$19,438

（總額：$3,125,688）。

64.  由於本席判定原告人應負25%的共分疏忽責任，上述損害賠償數額，亦應扣減25%。扣減後的數額為$2,344,266（$3,125,688 – 781,422）。

65.  有關一般損害賠償（即“痛苦、痛楚及失去生活樂趣”）的利息，以年息2%，從“申索陳述書”提出日（即2006年6月14 日）起至本“判案書”宣布日止計算。

66.  有關專項損害賠償的利息，以司法機構釐定的判決息率的半數，依下列方式計算：-

(1) 有關收入損失（見前第63(b)及(c)段），從2003年11月22日（即病假完結日後）起；

(2) “專項賠償：（見前第63(f)段），從2003年11月1日（即涉案意外發生後翌日）起，

至清還日止。

67.  本席已於審訊時聽取與訟雙方就訟費的所作的陳述。本席認定，應依有關訟費的一般慣例，頒令本訴訟所涉的訟費（包括任何前曾被保留日後決定的訟費），應由第一及二被告人付予原告人。如與訟各方未能就數額達成協議，交訟費評定官評定。

68.  原告人的自我訟費，應依香港法例第91A章《法律援助規則》評定。