僱主未提供安全工作系統的責任？申索得直

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：AHMED MASOOD v CHUNG KAU ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED - 法院：區域法院 (District Court) - 法官：Marlene Ng - 判決日期：2005年1月28日 ### 案情摘要 原告 (P) 於2000年11月1日受僱於被告 (D) 為建築工地雜工。2000年11月27日，P 在石硤尾一個建築工地搬運5條金屬灌漿管時滑倒受傷。P 聲稱其僱主 D 未能提供安全工作系統、違反佔用人謹慎責任 (occupier's duty of care) 及違反法定職責。D 否認事故發生，或即使發生，D 並無疏忽或違約，並聲稱 P 存在分擔疏忽 (contributory negligence)。P 稱其上司「車仔」催促其快速完成工作，故他每次獨自搬運5條灌漿管，因害怕被責罵或解僱而不敢與工友合作。P 亦指工作路徑濕滑泥濘。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於被告作為僱主是否違反了提供安全工作系統的謹慎責任 (duty of care)，以及是否違反了相關法定職責。被告辯稱搬運灌漿管是簡單常見的工作，無需特別指示，且原告存在分擔疏忽。原告則強調其在壓力下工作，且被告未提供足夠的安全培訓和指引。 ### 判決理由 法庭裁定原告的證供誠實可靠，事故確實按其所述方式發生。法官認為被告未能提供安全工作系統，因其未就搬運灌漿管的數量或方式給予明確指示，亦未進行風險評估。儘管被告聲稱搬運工作簡單，但法官指出，考慮到原告的經驗不足及語言障礙，被告應提供適當指示。法官亦認定被告違反了《建築地盤（安全）規例》(Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations) 第38A(1)條、《職業安全及健康條例》(Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance) 第6(1)及(2)條以及《職業安全及健康規例》(Occupational Safety and Health Regulations) 第23(1)、24(1)及27(1)條的法定職責。法官認為原告並無分擔疏忽，因其是在上司壓力下為完成工作而採取該方式。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例來確立僱主謹慎責任和法定職責的原則，包括 McDermid v Nash Dredging & Reclamation Co Ltd [1987] 1 AC 906 確立僱主不可轉讓的謹慎責任；Winter v Cardiff Rural District Council [1950] 1 All ER 819 討論僱主在複雜或危險工作中的責任；Rainfield Design & Associates Ltd v Siu Chi Moon [2000] 2 HKC 419 關於對有經驗工人提供安全指示的重要性；以及 Sun Wan Co v Ng Kam [1988] KC 358 關於僱員在僱主默許下以不安全方式工作時的責任。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭裁定被告須就原告的傷害負上全責，並無分擔疏忽。被告須向原告支付總計港幣340,907.55元的損害賠償，包括痛苦、受苦及喪失生活樂趣、審前收入損失、審後收入損失、喪失賺取收入能力、強積金損失及特別損害賠償。利息將按指定利率計算。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調僱主對僱員負有不可轉讓的謹慎責任，即使是看似簡單的工作，若存在固有風險，僱主仍須提供明確指示、培訓及進行風險評估。對於語言不通的僱員，僱主有責任確保其能理解安全指引。此外，法庭重申，僱員在僱主壓力下為完成工作而採取不安全方式，不構成其分擔疏忽。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: AHMED MASOOD v CHUNG KAU ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED - Court: District Court - Judge: Marlene Ng - Date of Judgment: 28 January 2005 ### Factual Background The Plaintiff (P) was employed by the Defendant (D) as a construction site general labourer on 1 November 1999. On 27 November 2000, P suffered personal injuries from a slip and fall at a construction site in Shek Kip Mei while carrying 5 metal grout pipes. P claimed D, his employer, breached its duty of care, occupier's duty of care, and statutory duties. D denied the accident occurred, or if it did, D was not negligent or in breach, and alleged P was contributorily negligent. P stated his supervisor, "Che Chai," pressured him to finish the task quickly, leading him to carry 5 pipes alone each time, fearing verbal abuse or dismissal if he did not work fast. P also alleged the path was wet and muddy. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions in dispute were whether the Defendant, as employer, breached its duty of care to provide a safe system of work and whether it breached relevant statutory duties. The Defendant argued that transporting pipes was a simple and common chore requiring no specific instructions, and that the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent. The Plaintiff contended he worked under pressure and the Defendant failed to provide adequate safety training and guidance. ### Ratio Decidendi The court found the Plaintiff's evidence honest and reliable, concluding the accident occurred as described. The judge held that the Defendant failed to provide a safe system of work by not giving clear instructions on the number or manner of carrying pipes, and by not conducting a risk assessment. Despite the Defendant's claim that the task was simple, the judge noted that considering the Plaintiff's inexperience and language barrier, the Defendant should have provided proper instructions. The judge also found the Defendant in breach of statutory duties under section 38A(1) of the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations, sections 6(1) and (2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance, and regulations 23(1), 24(1), and 27(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations. The judge found no contributory negligence on the Plaintiff's part, as he acted under pressure from his supervisor to complete the task. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited several cases to establish principles of employer's duty of care and statutory duties, including McDermid v Nash Dredging & Reclamation Co Ltd [1987] 1 AC 906 on non-delegable duty of care; Winter v Cardiff Rural District Council [1950] 1 All ER 819 on employer's discretion in complicated or dangerous work; Rainfield Design & Associates Ltd v Siu Chi Moon [2000] 2 HKC 419 on the importance of safety instructions for experienced workers; and Sun Wan Co v Ng Kam [1988] KC 358 regarding employee negligence when working unsafely with employer's tacit encouragement. ### Decision & Orders The court found the Defendant solely liable for the Plaintiff's injuries, with no contributory negligence. The Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiff a total of HK$340,907.55 in damages, covering pain, suffering and loss of amenities, pre-trial loss of earnings, post-trial loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity, MPF benefits loss, and special damages. Interest is to be calculated at specified rates. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights the non-delegable duty of care owed by employers to employees, emphasizing that even for seemingly simple tasks, clear instructions, training, and risk assessments are necessary if inherent risks exist. Employers must ensure safety guidelines are understood by employees with language barriers. The court also reaffirmed that an employee acting under employer pressure to complete a task in an unsafe manner does not constitute contributory negligence. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.