建築工地致命意外中分包商與業主的責任？申索駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：WAN TSZ NOK AND TAM YUK CHI ONION, the administratrices of the estate of TAM MAN TAT, deceased v HUNG FAI ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING LIMITED AND OTHERS - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：杜溎峰暫委法官 (Deputy High Court Judge To) - 判決日期：2008年11月17日 ### 案情摘要 本案是一宗因致命意外引起的個人損傷訴訟 (personal injuries action)。死者於2001年12月15日在香港浸會大學（第一第三方）的建築工地觸電身亡。浸會大學是該工地的擁有人，並聘請了總承建商中國土木工程建設總公司（第四被告）進行上層結構工程。第三被告Tridant Engineering Company Limited是第四被告的指定分包商，負責電力安裝工程。第二被告Talent Regent Engineering Limited是第三被告的分包商，再將工程分判給第一被告Hung Fai Electrical Engineering Limited。死者是第四第三方Ms Tam Yuk Ling（以Practical Engineering Co名義經營）的實際擁有人，該公司是第二第三方Roctec Technology Limited（負責電訊系統安裝）的再分包商。意外發生時，死者正在鋪設電腦電纜，觸碰到一個帶電的熒光燈面板底盤而觸電。第一被告的僱員Yan因照明不足，誤將火線接駁到燈面板底盤。原告與被告已就賠償達成和解，本案主要處理被告向第三方追討分擔金 (contribution) 的訴訟。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於浸會大學、Roctec Technology Limited（第二第三方）和Polycom Wiring Engineering Company Limited（第三第三方）是否為涉事處所的佔用人 (occupiers)，以及他們是否違反了對死者應負的謹慎責任 (duty of care)。被告方主張，第三方作為佔用人，未能對死者提供足夠安全保障，或未能履行其不可轉讓的謹慎責任 (non-delegable duty of care)。第三方則辯稱他們並非佔用人，且被告方的疏忽是導致致命意外的唯一原因。此外，法庭需判斷《建築地盤（安全）規例》(Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations) 第38A(3)條所施加的不可轉讓法定責任 (non-delegable statutory duty) 是否適用於分包商或僱主。 ### 判決理由 法庭分析了佔用人責任 (occupiers liability) 的法律原則，並引用了《佔用人法律責任條例》(Occupiers Liability Ordinance) 第3條及案例，指出佔用人是對處所擁有足夠控制權的人。然而，法庭認為Roctec和Polycom對處所的參與程度極低，不足以構成佔用人，因此不對死者負有普通謹慎責任 (common duty of care)。即使他們是佔用人，也已透過與總承建商CCECC協調並獲得許可進入處所，履行了其謹慎責任。關於《建築地盤（安全）規例》第38A(3)條，法庭裁定該條款下的不可轉讓法定責任僅施加於「負責任何建築地盤的承建商」(contractor responsible for any construction site)，即總承建商CCECC，而非分包商Roctec。法庭強調，要求分包商承擔總承建商的廣泛安全責任是不切實際的。對於浸會大學，法庭雖認定其為共同佔用人 (co-occupier)，但認為其已合理地委託了合資格的獨立承建商 (independent contractors)，並採取了合理的監督措施，因此已履行了其謹慎責任，不應對承建商的疏忽負責。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了以下案例： - Wheat and E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552：確立了佔用人對處所控制權的定義，以及多方可同時為佔用人的原則。 - Yeung Kam Fuk v Len Shing Construction Co Ltd & Ors [1986] HKC 160：確立了判斷佔用人是否已履行其謹慎責任的四點測試。 - Rainfield Design & Associates Ltd v Siu Chi Moon [2000] 2 HKC 420：討論了《建築地盤（安全）規例》下承建商的責任。 - Ferguson v Welsh and Others [1987] 3 All ER 777：關於業主在委託承建商後，對承建商活動的監督責任。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回了被告方對第一、第二和第三第三方的追討分擔金訴訟。法庭裁定被告方的疏忽是導致致命意外的唯一原因，而第三方並無違反任何對死者應負的謹慎責任。被告須支付第三方的訟費 (costs)。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了在多層分包結構下，總承建商在建築地盤安全方面的首要責任，特別是《建築地盤（安全）規例》第38A(3)條下的不可轉讓法定責任。判決明確指出，該責任不應不合理地延伸至專業分包商。同時，本案也闡明了業主在委託獨立承建商後，在合理監督下可免除對承建商疏忽行為的責任，除非存在特殊情況。 --- ### 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: WAN TSZ NOK AND TAM YUK CHI ONION, the administratrices of the estate of TAM MAN TAT, deceased v HUNG FAI ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING LIMITED AND OTHERS - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Deputy High Court Judge To - Date of Judgment: 17 November 2008 ### Factual Background This is a personal injuries action arising from a fatal accident where the deceased was electrocuted on 15 December 2001 at a construction site owned by Hong Kong Baptist University (1st Third Party). Baptist University engaged China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (4th Defendant) as the principal contractor. Tridant Engineering Company Limited (3rd Defendant) was a nominated sub-contractor for electrical installation, which sub-contracted to Talent Regent Engineering Limited (2nd Defendant), who further sub-sub-contracted to Hung Fai Electrical Engineering Limited (1st Defendant). The deceased was the de facto proprietor of Practical Engineering Co (4th Third Party), a sub-sub-contractor to Roctec Technology Limited (2nd Third Party), which was responsible for telecommunication system installation. The deceased was electrocuted when touching a live fluorescent light panel chassis while laying computer cables. An employee of Hung Fai, Yan, had inadvertently connected a live wire to the chassis due to insufficient lighting. The plaintiffs and defendants settled the claim, and the current proceedings concern the defendants' claim for contribution from the third parties. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions were whether Baptist University, Roctec Technology Limited (2nd Third Party), and Polycom Wiring Engineering Company Limited (3rd Third Party) were occupiers of the premises and if they breached their duty of care to the deceased. The defendants argued that the third parties, as occupiers, failed to ensure the deceased's safety or fulfill their non-delegable duty of care. The third parties contended they were not occupiers and that the defendants' negligence was the sole cause of the accident. Additionally, the court had to determine if the non-delegable statutory duty under regulation 38A(3) of the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations applied to sub-contractors or employers. ### Ratio Decidendi The court analyzed the principles of occupiers' liability, referring to Section 3 of the Occupiers Liability Ordinance and case law, defining an occupier as someone with sufficient control over the premises. However, the court found Roctec and Polycom's involvement in the premises minimal, insufficient to render them occupiers, and thus they owed no common duty of care. Even if they were occupiers, they had discharged their duty by coordinating with the principal contractor, CCECC, and gaining proper access. Regarding regulation 38A(3) of the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations, the court ruled that this non-delegable statutory duty applied only to the "contractor responsible for any construction site," i.e., the principal contractor CCECC, not sub-contractors like Roctec. The court emphasized that extending such broad safety responsibilities to specialist sub-contractors would be impractical. For Baptist University, while found to be a co-occupier, the court determined it had reasonably entrusted work to competent independent contractors and taken reasonable supervisory steps, thus fulfilling its duty of care and not being liable for the contractors' negligence. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The following precedents were cited: - Wheat and E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552: Defined control for occupiers' liability and the possibility of multiple occupiers. - Yeung Kam Fuk v Len Shing Construction Co Ltd & Ors [1986] HKC 160: Established a four-point test for an occupier's discharge of duty of care. - Rainfield Design & Associates Ltd v Siu Chi Moon [2000] 2 HKC 420: Discussed contractor responsibilities under the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations. - Ferguson v Welsh and Others [1987] 3 All ER 777: Addressed the owner's supervisory duty over a contractor's activities. ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the defendants' third-party proceedings against the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Third Parties. It was ruled that the defendants' negligence was the sole cause of the fatal accident, and the third parties had not breached any duty of care owed to the deceased. The defendants were ordered to pay the third parties' costs. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the primary responsibility of the principal contractor for construction site safety in multi-tiered sub-contracting structures, particularly concerning the non-delegable statutory duty under regulation 38A(3) of the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations. The ruling clarifies that this duty should not be unreasonably extended to specialist sub-contractors. It also elucidates that an owner, having engaged competent independent contractors and provided reasonable supervision, may be absolved of liability for the contractors' negligence, absent special circumstances. --- ### 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.