黃拾伍 訴 江廣華以江氏水喉公司之名經營及另三人

DCPI 1086/2009

香港特別行區

區域法院

人身傷害訴訟案件2009年第1086號

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

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

判決書

1.  這是原告人要求本庭更改臨時訟費命令的申請。2010年11月24日，本庭頒下後述的臨時訟費命令：第一、第二和第三被告人須共同和個別地支付原告人本案的訟費（包括聘用大律師的費用）。原告人須支付第四被告人本案的訟費（包括聘請大律師的費用）。原告人現要求本庭將原告人與第四被告人之間的訟費（包括聘請大律師的費用）改為由第一、第二和第三被告人共同和個別地支付給第四被告人。

2.  本庭需要考慮的，就是原告人對第四被告人的提起訴訟是否合理。申索陳述書的內容反映原告人提起對第四被告人訴訟的事實基礎。申索陳述書的第1段指稱：-

“(c) …… the 2^nd Defendant was occupying Flat 8, 10^th Floor, Block A (On Hei House), Siu Hei Court, No. 201 Wu Chui Road, Tuen Mun, New Territories, Hong Kong (“the Flat”);

(d) the 3^rd Defendant was the sole owner of the Flat;

(e) the 4^th Defendant was a friend of the 2^nd Defendant; and

(f) further, by reason of the aforesaidthe2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th Defendants were the occupiers of the Flat and the Plaintiff was a lawful visitor to the Site within the meaning of the Occupiers Liability Ordinance ……”

“3.(c) At about 3.20 p.m., the 4^th Defendant intended to smoke inside the kitchen of the Flat. She unlocked the window lock and pushed the window outward. The window pane and its frame (“the Window”) fell from the 10^th Floor and hit an iron clotheshorse of Flat 8 on the 2^nd Floor of the Building, and then hit the Plaintiff’s head. As a result, the Plaintiff sustained injuries to his head and right shoulder (“the Accident”).

4. The Accident to the Plaintiff was caused by the negligence and/or breach of statutory duties of the Defendants …..

PARTICULARS OF NEGLIGENCE OF THE 2^ND, 3^RD AND 4^TH DEFENDANTS

(r) Failing to maintain and repair the Window of the Flat when it was in an unsafe state which was liable to fall from the Flat;

(s) Failing to maintain the Flat, including the Window, in good and sound condition; and

(t) Failing to carry out any or any regular inspection and maintenance of the Window, so as to ensure that the Window was in a safe state and workable condition.

PARTICULARS OF BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTIES OF THE 2^ND, 3^RD AND 4^TH DEFENDANTS

(u) … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …… … …

(v) Contrary to Section 4B of the SOO in causing or allowing the Window and its frame to fall from the Flat to the danger or injury of the Plaintiff in or near a public place;

(w) Contrary to Section 3 of the OLO as the occupiers of the Flat in failing to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor, including the Plaintiff, will be reasonably safe in using the Site for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there;

(x) Contrary to Section 7 of the OSHO as the occupiers of the Flat in failing to ensure the (a) the premises; and (b) the means of access of and egress from the premises; and (c) any plant or substances kept at the premises are, so far as reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health.”

(底線後加)

3.  就疏忽的責任而言，原告人認為第四被告人是處所的其中一個佔用人的身份而對她提出起訴的。他認為她的作為構成疏忽而引致他受傷；疏忽的細節，一如第4(r)、(s)、(t)段所示，是對窗門疏於維修，而不是在行為上，即在解開窗鎖和推開窗門一事上，她有所疏忽。在申索陳述書中，原告人沒有指出推開窗戶的行為本身構成疏忽。

4.  第四被告是否處所的佔用人？根據申述書的內容，第四被告人是第二被告人的朋友。就這身份而言，她怎會是處所的佔用人！因此對處所的維修，她沒有任何責任。

5.  構成《簡易程序治罪條例》4B條（“4B條”）的罪行，是蓄意或疏忽的行為。申索陳述書顯示，第四被告人的疏忽的行為，在於身為處所的佔用人對窗門沒有進行維修和檢視它的狀況，但她不是處所的佔用人。她亦沒有自處所掉下任何東西，或容許任何東西自處所墜下，因此 4B條的條例亦對她不適用。她不是處所的佔用人，申索陳述書的第4(x)段對她亦不適用。

6.  原告人的大律師指出，根據第二被告人給予警方的口供，在意外發生前的數個月，當檢查有關窗門時，她沒有發現有關窗門有問題，因此意外可能是第四被告人推開窗戶時的行為而導致的；原告人亦不知道其他被告人是否會把原告人受傷的責任推在第四被告人身上。如果不把她列為被告人，原告人的律師可能會需要負上疏忽的責任。原告人大律師提出的事實，並沒有在申索陳述書中反映出來；她所提及的証據，根本上不是起訴第四被告人的事實基礎。一如前述，第四被告人推開窗門的行為本身不是疏忽的行為。在本案提出訴訟前，証據顯示，窗框的一部份霉爛嚴重，這是窗框墜下的原因。本案沒有證據證明第四被告人在推開窗框時知道這情況，因此第二被告人在意外發生前是否有檢查過窗門與起訴第四被告人沒有關係。就推卸責任而言，原告人應該採取的步驟是：在起訴第一、二、三名被告人之後，如果有被告人指稱第四被告人亦應對原告人受傷一事負責，原告人可基於該指稱考慮對第四被告人提出訴訟。本庭裁決，原告人根本不應該起訴第四被告人。

7.  基於上述的理由，本庭撤銷原告人的申請。

訟費

8.  本庭頒令，是次申請的訟費歸於本案的訟費。原告人和第四被告人的訟費，按法律援助規則評估。