清潔工滑倒受傷，僱主及管理公司責任？申索駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Cheng Yuk Chun v Winson Cleaning Service Company Limited and Others - 法院：區域法院 (District Court) - 法官：梁紹基法官 (His Hon. Judge Leung) - 判決日期：2007年7月6日 ### 案情摘要 原告鄭玉珍是一名43歲的清潔工人，於2004年4月24日在豪景花園工作期間受傷。她當時正從豪景花園第18座6樓至5樓的後樓梯搬運垃圾，聲稱因樓梯濕滑且有油漬而滑倒受傷。第一被告是她的僱主永順清潔服務有限公司，第二被告是物業管理公司豪景花園管理有限公司，第三被告是豪景花園業主立案法團。原告向三名被告索償，指控他們違反僱傭合約下的默示責任、佔用人責任以及一般謹慎責任。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於原告滑倒的原因以及各被告是否違反了其應負的責任。原告聲稱因樓梯濕滑有油漬而跌倒，但被告方質疑其說法的連貫性，並指出原告在勞工處的聲明中提及是因擦汗失去平衡而跌倒。此外，法庭需判斷第一被告作為僱主、第二及第三被告作為佔用人，是否違反了謹慎責任或法定責任，以及原告是否存在共同過失。 ### 判決理由 法庭裁定原告並非因樓梯濕滑或有油漬而跌倒。法官接納勞工處職業安全主任陳先生的證供，認為他是一名可靠的證人，並根據原告向勞工處的聲明及意外報告，認定原告是因擦汗時失去平衡而跌倒。由於未能確立被告有任何可追究的過失元素，法庭認為第一被告的工作系統並無過失，第二及第三被告作為佔用人亦無須負責。因此，法庭裁定被告並無違反其責任。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回原告的所有申索，並命令原告支付被告的訟費，如未能達成協議則需評定訟費。原告自身的訟費將根據法律援助規例評定。此命令為暫准命令，如14天內無異議將成為絕對命令。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了在人身傷害索償中，原告證供的一致性及與同期文件的吻合度至關重要。法庭會仔細審查原告在不同時間點對意外成因的陳述，若存在重大差異且未能提供合理解釋，將會影響其證供的可信性。此外，法庭在判斷僱主及佔用人責任時，會基於已確立的意外成因來評估是否存在可歸責的過失。 --- ### 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: Cheng Yuk Chun v Winson Cleaning Service Company Limited and Others - Court: District Court - Judge: His Hon. Judge Leung - Date of Judgment: 6 July 2007 ### Factual Background The plaintiff, Cheng Yuk Chun, a 43-year-old cleaner, sustained personal injuries on April 24, 2004, while working at Hong Kong Garden. She was collecting garbage from a back staircase between the 6th and 5th floors of Block 18 when she allegedly slipped and fell due to a wet and oily surface. The 1st Defendant was her employer, Winson Cleaning Service Company Limited. The 2nd Defendant was the property management company, T.L. 60 Management Limited, and the 3rd Defendant was The Incorporated Owners of Hongkong Garden. The plaintiff claimed against all three defendants for breach of implied contractual duty, occupier's liability, and general duty of care. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues in dispute were the cause of the plaintiff's fall and whether any of the defendants breached their duties. The plaintiff alleged she fell due to a wet and oily staircase, but the defendants highlighted inconsistencies in her statements, particularly her declaration to the Labour Department stating she lost balance while wiping sweat. The court had to determine if the 1st Defendant (employer), and the 2nd and 3rd Defendants (occupiers), breached their duties of care or statutory duties, and whether there was contributory negligence by the plaintiff. ### Ratio Decidendi The court found that the plaintiff did not fall because she slipped on a wet or oily staircase. The judge accepted the testimony of Mr. Chan, the occupational safety officer from the Labour Department, as reliable. Based on the plaintiff's declaration to the Labour Department and the accident report, the court concluded that the plaintiff lost balance when she intended to wipe her sweat. As there was no actionable fault element established on the part of the defendants, the court found no breach of duty by the 1st Defendant regarding its work system, nor by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants as occupiers. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and ordered her to pay the defendants' costs, to be taxed if not agreed. The plaintiff's own costs would be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations. This order is nisi and will become absolute in the absence of an application within 14 days. ### Key Takeaways This judgment underscores the critical importance of consistency in a plaintiff's evidence in personal injury claims. The court will scrutinize discrepancies between a plaintiff's various accounts of an accident, especially when compared with contemporaneous documents. A significant divergence without reasonable explanation can undermine credibility. Furthermore, the court's assessment of employer and occupier liability is contingent upon the established cause of the accident and whether any attributable fault exists. --- ### 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.