2015 届毕业（设计）论文外文翻译
翻译题目： COMMON LAW - TORT OF NEGLIGENCE
专业班级： 安全工程（01）班 学 号： 1101050102 学生姓名： 指导教师： 指导教师职称： 讲师 学 院 名 称： 资源与土木工程学院
完成日期： 2015年 6 月 1日
COMMON LAW - TORT OF NEGLIGENCE
普通法 - 侵权行为的疏忽
学生姓名
指导教师
COMMON LAW - TORT OF NEGLIGENCE
The meaning of tort
A tort has been defined as"civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for liquidated damages,and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of trust or other merely equitable obligation"(Salmond).
Basically,a tort is a civil wrong,as distinct from a criminal wrong.One individual committing a wrong against another individual commits a tort.
Major torts are:
-negligence
-nuisance
-defamation
-conversion
-trespass of goods
-trespass to a person
-trespass to land
Tort of negligence
What is Negligence?
"Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man,guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs,would do,or something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do."-Judge Alderson in Blyth v.Birmingham Waterworks Co.(1956).
Negligence or careless conduct which injures another person does not,by itself,give a right to action under common law.Before an action for damages can be considered,there are three conditions that must be satisfied as follows:
1.It must first be shown that in the particular circumstances,there was a legal duty on the part of the defendant to take care of the safety of the plaintiff.
2.Secondly,the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's negligent conduct resulted in a breach of that common law duty of care.
3.Thirdly,the plaintiff must have received injuries,damage or other loss as a direct result of the defendant's negligent conduct.
All these elements together constitute the tort of negligence,and may give rise to a civil action for damages against the negligent person.
The overlap between tort and crime
We generally think of murder as a crime,but it is also a tort to the person killed and to their dependants,so also is manslaughter.Theft is a crime,but it is also the tort of conversion of property.As a crime,the offender can be prosecuted and punished.As a tort,it gives rise to an action for damages.
It is broadly true to say that all crimes are torts if they amount to a physical interference with the plaintiff or their property;at least,if they cause actual damage to them.But a crime is not generally a tort if,although potentially dangerous,it has not caused damage.For example,dangerous driving is a crime but no tort has occurred where no injury/damage has been inflicted.
When a single act is a crime as well as a tort,both criminal and civil remedies may be pursued.The wrongdoer may be prosecuted as a criminal and sued as a tortfeasor.
In Groves v Lord Wimborne(1878),the question was fully argued before the Court of Appeal whether a civil action lay against the occupier of a factory for failing to fence dangerous machinery as
required by the Factory and Workshop Act,1878.The Court of Appeal decided that an action did lie and their decision has been accepted as precedent and further approved by the House of Lords in subsequent cases.
If an accident occurs at work to an employee,due to the employer failing to comply with a statutory requirement placed on him/her(i.e.Factories Act,1961 or delegated regulations),then the employer may find themselves being prosecuted by an enforcing authority and sued for the tort of negligence by the employee.The injured employee is likely to bring two actions against the employer:
1.Breach of statutory duty of care.
2.Breach of common law duty of care.
Common law duty of care
Common law imposes on all of us a duty to try to avoid injuring each other.This applies whether we are householders,road users,manufacturers or suppliers of goods or otherwise engaged in business,social or sporting activities involving risk of injury to others.
Case:Donoghue v Stevenson 1932
A man bought from a retailer a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant.The man gave the bottle to his lady friend who became ill after drinking part of its contents.
As well as containing ginger beer,the bottle had also contained the decomposed remains of a snail.The bottle was made of dark glass,consequently the snail was not discovered until the lady was refilling her glass.
Miss Donoghue could not sue for breach of contract as she had not bought the ginger beer in the first instance.Instead,she sued the manufacturers of the ginger beer for their negligence.
The House of Lords held that the manufacturer did owe a duty of care to the consumer,and hence,was liable.
Note:Manufacturers owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of their products.
The case of Donoghue v Stevenson is one of the most important cases in the law of torts.Since,judicial interpretation has been outlined as follows:
“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”.
“Who then in law is my neighbour?The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question. ”-Lord Atkin's„Neighbour Principle.
So Who Might Our Neighbours Be?
Under the general law of tort,a duty of care arises when two persons are so closely and directly related that the activities of one of them may involve appreciable risk of injury to the other.For example,a car driver owes a duty of care to pedestrians,other road users and owners of property adjacent to the road.
Doctors,dentists,solicitors and consultants owe a duty of care in the discharge of their duties to their patients,clients or other persons with whom they have a professional relationship.
Employers also owe a duty of care to their employees and also to other visitors to their premises,such as contractors.
Duty to take reasonable care
What is reasonable care?What degree of risk is necessary before the defendant is compelled to take the active measures to prevent injury?
To answer these questions,let us look at the following cases:
Case:Bolton v Stone(1951)
A cricket club had played for about 90 years on their ground and no ball had ever struck anyone on the highways near the ground.One day,however,the unfortunate Miss Stone was hit by a ball driven out of the ground by a visiting batsman.At the time,she was standing in the road outside her house.
The House of Lords decided that since the chance of such an accident happening was small,no reasonable person on the cricket club's committee would have taken precautions such as raising the height of the perimeter fence.
The claim based on negligence therefore failed.The result of the opinions of their Lordships is that there is no duty to take precautions against a danger which is no more than a remote possibility.It must first be shown that an accident is likely to happen and,secondly,that if it does happen,it is likely to cause injury.
i.e.In this case,the cricket club had taken reasonable care-the increasing of the perimeter fence height being unreasonable.
Employer's duty of care
Employers must take reasonable care not to subject employees to unnecessary risk.It is the duty of an employer to take reasonable care of the safety of their workers and other employees in the course of their employment.This duty extends in particular to the safety of their place of work,the plant and machinery and the method and conduct of the work.
If one employment is more dangerous than another,a greater degree of care must be taken on the part of the employer.If the employer is not able to eliminate the risk,they must at least take reasonable care to reduce it as far as possible.The employer must take reasonable care to ensure the safety of their employees'workplace even when it involves work at another occupier's premises.
However,since in this latter case where the premises do not belong to an employer the precautions that they can reasonably be expected to take maybe limited.If,for example,the employee is a window cleaner working on someone else's premises,the employer cannot usually ensure all window frames are in good order.They must,however,ensure the proper safety equipment is provided and appropriate instructions given.
Case:Wilson‟s v Clyde Coal Co.v English(1938)
The House of Lords held that the personal duty of the employer to take reasonable care for the safety of workers was threefold:
It requires them to:
1.To provide safe plant and machinery.
2.Ensure they employ competent staff.
3.Provide safe systems of work.
In this case,a miner was leaving the pit when the haulage plant was put into operation.He was crushed against a wall before he had time to reach a refuge hole.It was held to be an unsafe system for the haulage plant to be in operation while the morning shift was leaving work.
In Latimer v A.E.C.Ltd.(1952),L.J.Singleton said,"the duty of the employer is to act reasonably towards his men,to see that his men are not exposed to unnecessary risks.That obligation extends to the building in which they work,to the plant,and in some cases at least,it covers the providing of a proper system of work".
Judicial interpretation has shown it reasonable for employers to provide:
-safe plant/equipment
-competent staff
-safe systems of work
-adequate supervision
-safe buildings
-safe environment.
In addition,the employer will need to identify any hazards in the workplace and ensure:
1.The employee is aware of any dangers associated with their job.
2.The employee knows what precautions must be taken in view of those dangers.
3.The precautions that are necessary are always available for use.
i.e.the employer must run an energetic safety campaign to get the message over.
An employer has not fulfilled his/her common law duty of care by simply issuing,say,eye protection to one and all and then forgetting the matter.The employer must educate the employee by telling them:
1.The danger of flying particles.
2.The need to wear eye protection.
3.Where to get a replacement,etc.
Group training exercises and individual instruction will be necessary in many cases.The employer must then ensure employees use precautions such as eye protection.Supervision must insist that precautions made available by the employer are,in fact,used,otherwise the employer may be held liable in the event of an accident.
As well as having a duty of care placed on the employer toward employees,the employer also owes visitors a duty of care.
Magnitude of risk
The degree of care,the amount of effort required and the money needed to be outlaid by the employer,will depend chiefly on the magnitude of the risk.
In Edwards v N.C.B.(1949),L J Asquith said,“A computation must be made in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale,and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk is placed on the other”.
At one end of the scale,there is only a remote possibility of injury,whereupon no precautions at all will need to be taken.
At the other end of the scale,an exacting standard of care is required where persons are engaged in ultra-hazardous activities.
The magnitude of the risk depends partly on the probability of an accident occurring but also on the gravity of the results if it does occur.
i.e.Two factors-
1. Likelihood of injury being in fact caused.
2. Seriousness of injury risked.
In the first instance,the more likely or probable an accident is,the greater the duty to guard against it.If there is only a remote possibility of danger,the need for precautions is usually much reduced.
The second factor that an employer must consider when determining the magnitude of risk is that of the potential seriousness of injury.Stringent precautions would still be necessary where the chances of an accident happening are quite small,but the resulting injuries from the accident,are likely to serious should it in fact occur.
Case:Paris v Stepney Borough Council(1951)
Goggles were held necessary for an employee known by his employers to have only one
eye,though not for other employees doing the same work.Although the likelihood of injury to his remaining good eye was slight,the consequences for Paris were clearly serious since it resulted in his total blindness.
i.e.1 the likelihood of injury occurring to Paris and his fellow employees doing the same job was small.2 the seriousness of injury risked was much greater however for Paris as he would be totally blinded if he lost his one good eye,whereas other employees would still have one eye remaining.
Extension of employer‟s common law duty of care
Paris v Stepney Borough Council(1951)also shows an expansion of the common law duty of care placed on employers.Where an employer knows that an employee is disabled in some way,then the employer must do even more to ensure that the disabled employee is not injured because of such disability.Hence,a greater duty of care is owed to those employees with some disability over and above that already owed to the normal,healthy employee with no disability.
This extension of an employer's duty of care would also apply to young persons and new employees who might not appreciate all the hazards of their workplace at the outset of their employment.
Vicarious liability
An employer may be held civilly or criminally liable for the negligent or unlawful act of an employee,even though the employee can be shown to have wilfully disobeyed the express instructions of the employer.This is known as the doctrine of vicarious liability,whereby one party becomes liable for the actions of another.
If the employers are themselves party to the negligent or unlawful act,or aid and abet the unlawful activities of another,they assume personal liability along with that other person.
For vicarious liability to exist,the following must be proven:
1.That the person concerned was an employee of the accused
2.That the employee was acting in the course of their employment
NB:If the person causing the loss was not a direct employee,but rather a temporary member of staff,under the“control”of the employer,(being told what to do and how to do it),then they could be viewed as a“notional employee”,and as such the employer would be responsible for their actions.
Contributory negligence
The Law Reform(Contributory Negligence),Act 1945,sec 1(1),provides that where injury is caused by the fault of two or more persons,liability or fault,(and,as a result damages),must be apportioned in accordance with the extent to which either or both were to blame.
If,therefore,following an employee's injury,it was established that both employer and employee were at fault(e.g.in breach of statutory requirements),when sued for damages,the employer can plead that the employee,through his/her negligence in failing to look after their own health and safety,should be held partly to blame and have their damages reduced in accordance and proportional to that extent.
A classic case illustrating the operation of this rule(which is applied quite extensively in practice by judges)is Uddin v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd(1965).
In this case an employee,who was a machine minder,in an effort to retrieve a pigeon,leaned across a revolving shaft in a part of the factory in which he was not authorised to be,and was injured,losing an arm.His employment was confined to the cement-packing plant but his injury occurred in the dust extraction plant.
He sued his employer for breach of section 14(1)of the Factories Act 1937(the predecessor of the Factories Act 1961).It was held that the employer was liable under that section,but that the
employee's damages would be reduced by 80%to account for his own contributory negligence.(Stranks)
Volenti non fit injuria,(voluntary acceptance of risk)
Early in the industrial revolution,it was generally accepted that working in places like mines,factories and mills was inherently dangerous.Therefore when workers and others were injured in such places,no one was surprised,and as such they accepted any losses as a fact of life.
More recently,this concept has all but disappeared.There are still a few instances where a person undertaking a job,being in full command of the facts as to risk and likely consequences,willingly accepts such likely risks and results.
One such instance may be a scaffolder,who,being fully trained and equipped to erect scaffold,will accept a certain amount of danger and a lesser degree of protection.Equally,a professional rugby player may reasonably expect to be injured during a fair tackle,and as such could not look to sue the person who injures him,for any loss.
Defences open to employers in cases of alleged negligence
In a case of alleged negligence,the employer can use any one,or combination of defences. There are five such defences available,viz:
1.That there was no duty of care owed
2.There was a duty of care,but it was not broken,(reasonable care was taken)
3.There was a breach of duty,but no loss occurred,or any direct lossresult of such a breach.
4.A partial defence can be that there was some contributory negligence
5.The final defence is that the injured party,knowing the risks and consequences,voluntarily accepted such risks
普通法-侵权行为的疏忽
侵权行为的含义
侵权行为被定义为“民事不法行为的补救措施一种常见的法律行动是违约金, 并不是专门的违反合同或违反信托或其他的仅仅是公平的义务”(萨尔蒙德) 。
总的说来，侵权行为是一种民事过失，不同于刑事犯罪。一个人对另一个人犯下错误是侵权行为。 主要的侵权行为有:
-过失
-麻烦
-诽谤
-转换
-非法侵入商品
-冒犯他人
-侵入他人土地
过失侵权行为
什么是过失?
“过失是一个合理的人疏忽的行为, 引导在那些通常考虑调节人类事务的行为，会做什么, 而一个谨慎和理智的人不会做。”——在伯明翰自来水厂有限公司切诉艾德森(1956)。
疏忽或粗心的行为而伤害另一个人没有, 本身, 给行动在普通法的权利。损害赔偿可以被认为是一个行动之前, 有三个条件必须满足如下：
1、首先必须表明，在特定的情况下，部分被告有照顾原告的安全的一个法律责任。
2、其次，原告必须证明被告的过失行为违反普通法特殊照顾的义务。
3、第三， 原告必须已经收到伤害、损坏或其他损失作为被告的过失行为的直接结果。
所有这些因素共同构成过失侵权行为, 而且过失的人可能引起民事诉讼, 要求赔偿。
侵权和犯罪之间的重叠
我们通常认为杀人是犯罪，但是对被杀的原告来说是侵权行为, 而对他们的家属而言是过失杀人。偷窃是一种犯罪行为，但它也是侵占财产的侵权行为。作为一种犯罪，罪犯可以受到起诉和惩罚。作为一种侵权行为，它引起的损害赔偿诉讼。
基本上真正的说, 如果他们物理干扰原告或他们的财产，所有的犯罪都是侵权；至少，如果他们对原告造成实际损害。但是犯罪不是一般侵权, 尽管有潜在危险的, 但它并没有造成伤害。例如，危险驾驶是犯罪行为但是没有发生侵权没有造成伤害/破坏。
当一个单一的行为是犯罪以及侵权行为，刑事和民事赔偿可能会纠缠。违法者可能被作为刑事起诉和作为侵权行为人。
在温伯恩城市(1878)，在法院上诉之前引起争论，民事诉讼控告工厂占领者未能防护危险机械是否纳入工厂和车间法案，1878。法院上诉决定着，行动是谎言，他们的决定已被接受作为先例，并进一步通过上议院在随后的案件。
如果事故发生在员工工作的时候，由于雇主未能遵守法定要求强加于他/她(即工厂法案，1961委托的规定) ，然后雇主可能会发现自己被一个执行机构起诉和被员工控告侵权过失。受伤的员工有可能对雇主提起两个诉讼：
1、违反法定注意义务。
2、违反普通法注意义务。
普通法的注意义务
普通法对我们所有的人有责任尽力避免伤害对方。这适用于无论我们家庭, 道路使用者, 制造商或供应商的商品或从事商业、社会或体育活动受伤的风险。这适用于我们无论是户主，道路使用者，制造商或商品的供应商或从事其他业务，涉及风险的伤害他人的社交或体育活动。
案例:1932年多诺霍诉史蒂文森
一个男人从零售商那里购买一瓶被告生产的姜汁啤酒。男人把瓶子给他夫人的朋友，他夫人的朋友喝了瓶中的酒后生病。
此外封闭的姜汁啤酒, 瓶子也包含了已腐烂的蜗牛。瓶子是深色的玻璃, 结果这个蜗牛直到她重新装满的时候才发现。
多诺霍小姐不能起诉违反合同, 因为在第一个实例中她没有买姜汁啤酒。相反, 她凭借姜汁啤酒的制造商的过失起诉他们。
英国国会的上议院认为, 制造商确实欠消费者的职责义务, 因此, 应受罚的。
注:制造商欠了最终消费他们的产品的消费者的职责义务。
多诺霍诉史蒂文森是侵权行为法中的一种最重要的案件。自此以后, 司法解释概述如下：
“你必须采取合理的注意去避免某种作为或不作为，你能合理地预见可能损害你邻居的行为。” “谁是我的邻居”这个问题的答案是，这些人受我行为的影响是如此地紧密和直接，以致于我应该合理地考虑：当我打算去做或不做某种事情的时候，这种行为的结果会如何。”——阿特金勋爵的邻居原则
所以谁是可能我们的邻居?
根据侵权行为的一般规律，注意义务时, 当两个人如此密切和直接相关, 其中可能涉及的活动明显受伤的风险。例如，一个汽车司机欠行人、其他道路使用者和毗邻道路的财产所有者的注意义务。
医生、牙医、律师和顾问在执行他们的职责的时候欠了病人，客户或其他人与他们有一个专业的关系的注意义务。
雇主也欠员工的注意义务，承包商也欠房屋参观者的注意义务。
采取合理的注意义务
什么是合理的注意？在被告不得不采取积极措施来防止受伤之前什么程度的风险是必要的? 为了回答这些问题, 让我们看一下以下案例：
案例:博尔顿诉石头(1951)
一个板球俱乐部在他们的球场效力大约90年， 没有球袭击任何在附近的高速公路的地面上的人。一天，然而，不幸的石头小姐被一个拜访的击球手打出地面的球袭击。当时，她站在她房子外面的道路上。
英国上议院认为，既然这种事故发生的可能性很小，没有合理的人在板球俱乐部的委员会采取预防措施，如提高周边围墙的高度。
基于过失索赔因此失败了。当局的意见的结果是没有义务采取措施预防只不过是一个遥远的可能性危险。它首先必须显示是一个可能发生的事故，其次，如果它发生，它可能会造成伤害。
也就是在这种情况下, 板球俱乐部已采取合理的关注——外围的栏杆高度的增加是不合理的。 雇主的注意义务
雇主必须采取合理的关注不受制于员工不必要的风险。它是合理照顾他们在就业过程中的工人和其他员工的安全雇主的责任。这种责任特别是延伸到他们的工作场所工作、工厂、机械、方法和工作行为的安全。
如果一个工作比另一个更危险, 更大程度的必须注意部分雇主。如果雇主不能消除风险，至少他们必须采取合理的注意尽可能降低它。雇主必须采取合理的护理，以确保员工的工作场所的安全, 即使它包含在另一个工作占用的处所。
然而, 由于在这种情形下，那里的房屋不属于雇主，他们可以采取的措施是有限的。例如，如果员工是一个窗户清洁工在别人的场所，雇主通常不能确保所有的窗框都很整齐。然而, 他们必须确保提供适当的安全设备和适当的指示。
案例:威尔逊诉克莱德煤炭有限公司 (1938)
英国上议院认为, 雇主采取合理的照顾工人的安全的个人责任是3倍：
这需要它们：
1、提供安全的工厂和机器。
2、确保他们雇用合格的员工。
3、提供安全系统的工作。
在这件案例下, 当运输设备投入运行时一个矿工离开坑。在他有时间达到避车洞前，他被挤到了墙上。运输设备正在运转而早班下班被认为是一个不安全的行为。
在拉蒂默诉A.E.C. 有限公司(1952), 辛格尔顿法官说, “雇主的职责是采取合理的行动对他的人, 看到他的人并不暴露在不必要的风险。义务延伸到他们所工作的大楼、工厂，并至少在某些情况下，它包括一个适当的系统工作提供”。
司法解释已经表明雇主合理的提供:
-安全厂房/设备
-主管人员
-安全系统的工作
- 适当的监督
- 安全的建筑物
- 安全的环境。
此外，用人单位将需要确定任何工作场所的危害，确保：
1、员工意识到任何与工作相关的危险。
2、员工知道针对这些危险必须采取的预防措施。
3、预防措施必须总是可用的。即用人单位必须运行在一个精力充沛的安全活动来获取消息。 雇主没有通过发行、说和眼睛保护履行他/她的普通法注意义务, 然后忘记这件事。雇主必须教育员工，告诉他们：
1、飞行粒子的危险。
2、需要穿保护眼睛。
3、在哪里得到一个替换等。
团体训练和个别指导将在许多情况下是必要的。雇主必须确保员工使用预防措施比如眼睛保护。必须坚持雇主提供预防措施的监督, 否则雇主可能在事故发生后会被追究法律责任。
不仅雇主对雇员有注意义务, 而且雇主也欠游客的注意义务。
风险的大小
雇主付出的关心程度、所需的精力和金钱需要，主要取决于风险的大小。
在爱德华兹诉英国国家煤炭局(1949)，阿斯奎斯法官说，“风险的定量计算必须要放在同一个标度，避免风险涉及的牺牲的必要措施是放在另一个标度”。
在标度的的一个终点，只有一个极小可能性的伤害, 因此不需要采取预防措施。
在标度的的另一个终点，从事高度危险活动的人们需要一个严格的注意标准。
风险的大小取决于事故发生的概率和事故发生的严重性。
即两个因素：
1、事实上造成伤害的可能性。
2、伤害风险的严重性。
首先，事故发生的可能性越大，防止它的责任就越大。如果只有一个远程危险的可能性，需要预防措施通常是降低的。如果危险只有一个极小的可能性，需要的预防措施通常是大大减少的。
雇主确定风险大小的时候，必须考虑第二个因素损伤的潜在严重性。发生几率非常小的事故仍然需要严格的预防措施，但由此事故造成的伤害，有可能实际上发生的结果会很严重。
案例: 帕里斯诉斯黛布尼镇议会(1951)
雇主知道只有一只眼睛的雇员必须佩戴防护眼罩, 但是其他员工不需要。尽管他另一个的好眼睛遭受伤害的可能性是轻微的, 但是帕里斯无疑是很严重的, 因为它导致的结果是完全失明。
即1、帕里斯受到伤害和同类情况的员工做同样的工作的可能性是很小的。2、伤害风险严重性很
大，如果他失去了另一只好眼睛，他会完全失明, 而其他员工仍有一只眼睛。
普通法雇主的注意义务的延伸
帕里斯诉斯黛布尼镇议会(1951)也显示了普通法注意义务着眼于雇主的一个扩展。在雇主知道员工在某些方面是残疾的, ,因为这样的残疾，然后雇主必须做出更多的努力, 以确保残疾人员工不受伤。因此, 一个更大的注意义务应给予一些残疾员工, 除了这些之外还应给予正常健康没有残疾的员工。
这个雇主的扩展的注意义务也适用于在工作起初时候可能不能鉴别工作场所所有的危险的年轻人和新员工。
替代责任
雇主对雇员的疏忽或非法行为有责任可能被追究民事或刑事责任，, 即使员工可以展示故意违反了用人单位表达指令。这就是所谓的替代责任的学说, 即一方成为另一个的行为负责者。
如果雇主自己一方的过失或非法行为, 或另一人的帮凶的非法活动, 他们一起承担个人责任和其他的人责任。
对于存在替代责任, 必须证明如下:
1、被牵连的人是被告员工
2、员工是在雇佣的期间
注:如果造成损失并不是一个直接员工，而是一个临时的员工，用人单位的“控制”下，(被告知该做什么和怎么做) ，然后他们可以被视为一个“名义员工”，而这样，雇主将为他们的行为负责。
共同过失
法律改革(共同过失) 法案，1945年, 美国证券交易委员会1(1)，提供由两个或两个以上的人的错，责任或过错造成的损伤(因此赔偿) ，必须一致分摊一个或两个应承担的责任。
因此，如果员工的受伤, 确定是雇主和雇员都出毛病(如违反法定要求) ， 诉讼要求赔偿损失时, ，他的雇主可以辩解员工, 通过他/她的过失未能照顾自己的健康和安全，应承担部分责任, 损害赔偿按照那样的程度比例减少。
经典案例说明这个操作规范(在实践中被法官应用非常广泛) 乌丁诉波特兰水泥制造商有限公司(1965)。
在这个案例中，这个员工是机器看守者, 企图取回一只鸽子，靠在没有授权他的工厂的一个旋转轴的一部分受伤了，失去了一条胳膊。他的工作是限制于水泥包装厂但他的受伤发生在除尘设备。
他起诉他的雇主14条违约(1)1937年的工厂法(1961年工厂法的前身) 。这是认为雇主应承担部分责任，但员工的赔偿将会减少80%，对自己的共同过失负责。(斯特兰克斯)
对同意者不构成侵害，(自愿承担风险)
在工业革命初期，人们普遍认为工作在矿山、工厂和作坊是内在的危险。因此，当工人和其他人员在这些地方受伤，没有人感到惊讶，同样的他们接受任何损失已经是一个不争的事实。
最近以来，这个观念几乎消失了。仍有一些例子是一个人担任一份工作，说到风险和可能的后果仍然完全听受指挥，心甘情愿地接受这样的可能风险和结果。
其中一个实例可能是充分的训练和装备建造脚手架的架子工，会承担一定的危险得到一个较小程度的保护。同样, 一个职业橄榄球运动员在一个公平的擒住并摔倒而受伤可能会理性的接受，依其身份不会起诉伤害他的人要求赔偿损失。
倘若涉嫌过失，雇主可以辩护。
倘若涉嫌过失，用人单位可以使用任何一个或联合的辩护。
有五个有效的辩护，即：
1、没有注意义务亏欠。
2、注意义务, 但没有被打断，采取合理的注意。
3、有失职，但没有造成损失，或破坏造成的任何直接损失。
4、部分辩护可以考虑一些共同过失。
5、最后的辩护是受伤的一方，了解风险和后果，自愿接受此类风险。
2015 届毕业（设计）论文外文翻译
翻译题目： COMMON LAW - TORT OF NEGLIGENCE
专业班级： 安全工程（01）班 学 号： 1101050102 学生姓名： 指导教师： 指导教师职称： 讲师 学 院 名 称： 资源与土木工程学院
完成日期： 2015年 6 月 1日
COMMON LAW - TORT OF NEGLIGENCE
普通法 - 侵权行为的疏忽
学生姓名
指导教师
COMMON LAW - TORT OF NEGLIGENCE
The meaning of tort
A tort has been defined as"civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for liquidated damages,and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of trust or other merely equitable obligation"(Salmond).
Basically,a tort is a civil wrong,as distinct from a criminal wrong.One individual committing a wrong against another individual commits a tort.
Major torts are:
-negligence
-nuisance
-defamation
-conversion
-trespass of goods
-trespass to a person
-trespass to land
Tort of negligence
What is Negligence?
"Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man,guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs,would do,or something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do."-Judge Alderson in Blyth v.Birmingham Waterworks Co.(1956).
Negligence or careless conduct which injures another person does not,by itself,give a right to action under common law.Before an action for damages can be considered,there are three conditions that must be satisfied as follows:
1.It must first be shown that in the particular circumstances,there was a legal duty on the part of the defendant to take care of the safety of the plaintiff.
2.Secondly,the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's negligent conduct resulted in a breach of that common law duty of care.
3.Thirdly,the plaintiff must have received injuries,damage or other loss as a direct result of the defendant's negligent conduct.
All these elements together constitute the tort of negligence,and may give rise to a civil action for damages against the negligent person.
The overlap between tort and crime
We generally think of murder as a crime,but it is also a tort to the person killed and to their dependants,so also is manslaughter.Theft is a crime,but it is also the tort of conversion of property.As a crime,the offender can be prosecuted and punished.As a tort,it gives rise to an action for damages.
It is broadly true to say that all crimes are torts if they amount to a physical interference with the plaintiff or their property;at least,if they cause actual damage to them.But a crime is not generally a tort if,although potentially dangerous,it has not caused damage.For example,dangerous driving is a crime but no tort has occurred where no injury/damage has been inflicted.
When a single act is a crime as well as a tort,both criminal and civil remedies may be pursued.The wrongdoer may be prosecuted as a criminal and sued as a tortfeasor.
In Groves v Lord Wimborne(1878),the question was fully argued before the Court of Appeal whether a civil action lay against the occupier of a factory for failing to fence dangerous machinery as
required by the Factory and Workshop Act,1878.The Court of Appeal decided that an action did lie and their decision has been accepted as precedent and further approved by the House of Lords in subsequent cases.
If an accident occurs at work to an employee,due to the employer failing to comply with a statutory requirement placed on him/her(i.e.Factories Act,1961 or delegated regulations),then the employer may find themselves being prosecuted by an enforcing authority and sued for the tort of negligence by the employee.The injured employee is likely to bring two actions against the employer:
1.Breach of statutory duty of care.
2.Breach of common law duty of care.
Common law duty of care
Common law imposes on all of us a duty to try to avoid injuring each other.This applies whether we are householders,road users,manufacturers or suppliers of goods or otherwise engaged in business,social or sporting activities involving risk of injury to others.
Case:Donoghue v Stevenson 1932
A man bought from a retailer a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant.The man gave the bottle to his lady friend who became ill after drinking part of its contents.
As well as containing ginger beer,the bottle had also contained the decomposed remains of a snail.The bottle was made of dark glass,consequently the snail was not discovered until the lady was refilling her glass.
Miss Donoghue could not sue for breach of contract as she had not bought the ginger beer in the first instance.Instead,she sued the manufacturers of the ginger beer for their negligence.
The House of Lords held that the manufacturer did owe a duty of care to the consumer,and hence,was liable.
Note:Manufacturers owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of their products.
The case of Donoghue v Stevenson is one of the most important cases in the law of torts.Since,judicial interpretation has been outlined as follows:
“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”.
“Who then in law is my neighbour?The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question. ”-Lord Atkin's„Neighbour Principle.
So Who Might Our Neighbours Be?
Under the general law of tort,a duty of care arises when two persons are so closely and directly related that the activities of one of them may involve appreciable risk of injury to the other.For example,a car driver owes a duty of care to pedestrians,other road users and owners of property adjacent to the road.
Doctors,dentists,solicitors and consultants owe a duty of care in the discharge of their duties to their patients,clients or other persons with whom they have a professional relationship.
Employers also owe a duty of care to their employees and also to other visitors to their premises,such as contractors.
Duty to take reasonable care
What is reasonable care?What degree of risk is necessary before the defendant is compelled to take the active measures to prevent injury?
To answer these questions,let us look at the following cases:
Case:Bolton v Stone(1951)
A cricket club had played for about 90 years on their ground and no ball had ever struck anyone on the highways near the ground.One day,however,the unfortunate Miss Stone was hit by a ball driven out of the ground by a visiting batsman.At the time,she was standing in the road outside her house.
The House of Lords decided that since the chance of such an accident happening was small,no reasonable person on the cricket club's committee would have taken precautions such as raising the height of the perimeter fence.
The claim based on negligence therefore failed.The result of the opinions of their Lordships is that there is no duty to take precautions against a danger which is no more than a remote possibility.It must first be shown that an accident is likely to happen and,secondly,that if it does happen,it is likely to cause injury.
i.e.In this case,the cricket club had taken reasonable care-the increasing of the perimeter fence height being unreasonable.
Employer's duty of care
Employers must take reasonable care not to subject employees to unnecessary risk.It is the duty of an employer to take reasonable care of the safety of their workers and other employees in the course of their employment.This duty extends in particular to the safety of their place of work,the plant and machinery and the method and conduct of the work.
If one employment is more dangerous than another,a greater degree of care must be taken on the part of the employer.If the employer is not able to eliminate the risk,they must at least take reasonable care to reduce it as far as possible.The employer must take reasonable care to ensure the safety of their employees'workplace even when it involves work at another occupier's premises.
However,since in this latter case where the premises do not belong to an employer the precautions that they can reasonably be expected to take maybe limited.If,for example,the employee is a window cleaner working on someone else's premises,the employer cannot usually ensure all window frames are in good order.They must,however,ensure the proper safety equipment is provided and appropriate instructions given.
Case:Wilson‟s v Clyde Coal Co.v English(1938)
The House of Lords held that the personal duty of the employer to take reasonable care for the safety of workers was threefold:
It requires them to:
1.To provide safe plant and machinery.
2.Ensure they employ competent staff.
3.Provide safe systems of work.
In this case,a miner was leaving the pit when the haulage plant was put into operation.He was crushed against a wall before he had time to reach a refuge hole.It was held to be an unsafe system for the haulage plant to be in operation while the morning shift was leaving work.
In Latimer v A.E.C.Ltd.(1952),L.J.Singleton said,"the duty of the employer is to act reasonably towards his men,to see that his men are not exposed to unnecessary risks.That obligation extends to the building in which they work,to the plant,and in some cases at least,it covers the providing of a proper system of work".
Judicial interpretation has shown it reasonable for employers to provide:
-safe plant/equipment
-competent staff
-safe systems of work
-adequate supervision
-safe buildings
-safe environment.
In addition,the employer will need to identify any hazards in the workplace and ensure:
1.The employee is aware of any dangers associated with their job.
2.The employee knows what precautions must be taken in view of those dangers.
3.The precautions that are necessary are always available for use.
i.e.the employer must run an energetic safety campaign to get the message over.
An employer has not fulfilled his/her common law duty of care by simply issuing,say,eye protection to one and all and then forgetting the matter.The employer must educate the employee by telling them:
1.The danger of flying particles.
2.The need to wear eye protection.
3.Where to get a replacement,etc.
Group training exercises and individual instruction will be necessary in many cases.The employer must then ensure employees use precautions such as eye protection.Supervision must insist that precautions made available by the employer are,in fact,used,otherwise the employer may be held liable in the event of an accident.
As well as having a duty of care placed on the employer toward employees,the employer also owes visitors a duty of care.
Magnitude of risk
The degree of care,the amount of effort required and the money needed to be outlaid by the employer,will depend chiefly on the magnitude of the risk.
In Edwards v N.C.B.(1949),L J Asquith said,“A computation must be made in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale,and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk is placed on the other”.
At one end of the scale,there is only a remote possibility of injury,whereupon no precautions at all will need to be taken.
At the other end of the scale,an exacting standard of care is required where persons are engaged in ultra-hazardous activities.
The magnitude of the risk depends partly on the probability of an accident occurring but also on the gravity of the results if it does occur.
i.e.Two factors-
1. Likelihood of injury being in fact caused.
2. Seriousness of injury risked.
In the first instance,the more likely or probable an accident is,the greater the duty to guard against it.If there is only a remote possibility of danger,the need for precautions is usually much reduced.
The second factor that an employer must consider when determining the magnitude of risk is that of the potential seriousness of injury.Stringent precautions would still be necessary where the chances of an accident happening are quite small,but the resulting injuries from the accident,are likely to serious should it in fact occur.
Case:Paris v Stepney Borough Council(1951)
Goggles were held necessary for an employee known by his employers to have only one
eye,though not for other employees doing the same work.Although the likelihood of injury to his remaining good eye was slight,the consequences for Paris were clearly serious since it resulted in his total blindness.
i.e.1 the likelihood of injury occurring to Paris and his fellow employees doing the same job was small.2 the seriousness of injury risked was much greater however for Paris as he would be totally blinded if he lost his one good eye,whereas other employees would still have one eye remaining.
Extension of employer‟s common law duty of care
Paris v Stepney Borough Council(1951)also shows an expansion of the common law duty of care placed on employers.Where an employer knows that an employee is disabled in some way,then the employer must do even more to ensure that the disabled employee is not injured because of such disability.Hence,a greater duty of care is owed to those employees with some disability over and above that already owed to the normal,healthy employee with no disability.
This extension of an employer's duty of care would also apply to young persons and new employees who might not appreciate all the hazards of their workplace at the outset of their employment.
Vicarious liability
An employer may be held civilly or criminally liable for the negligent or unlawful act of an employee,even though the employee can be shown to have wilfully disobeyed the express instructions of the employer.This is known as the doctrine of vicarious liability,whereby one party becomes liable for the actions of another.
If the employers are themselves party to the negligent or unlawful act,or aid and abet the unlawful activities of another,they assume personal liability along with that other person.
For vicarious liability to exist,the following must be proven:
1.That the person concerned was an employee of the accused
2.That the employee was acting in the course of their employment
NB:If the person causing the loss was not a direct employee,but rather a temporary member of staff,under the“control”of the employer,(being told what to do and how to do it),then they could be viewed as a“notional employee”,and as such the employer would be responsible for their actions.
Contributory negligence
The Law Reform(Contributory Negligence),Act 1945,sec 1(1),provides that where injury is caused by the fault of two or more persons,liability or fault,(and,as a result damages),must be apportioned in accordance with the extent to which either or both were to blame.
If,therefore,following an employee's injury,it was established that both employer and employee were at fault(e.g.in breach of statutory requirements),when sued for damages,the employer can plead that the employee,through his/her negligence in failing to look after their own health and safety,should be held partly to blame and have their damages reduced in accordance and proportional to that extent.
A classic case illustrating the operation of this rule(which is applied quite extensively in practice by judges)is Uddin v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd(1965).
In this case an employee,who was a machine minder,in an effort to retrieve a pigeon,leaned across a revolving shaft in a part of the factory in which he was not authorised to be,and was injured,losing an arm.His employment was confined to the cement-packing plant but his injury occurred in the dust extraction plant.
He sued his employer for breach of section 14(1)of the Factories Act 1937(the predecessor of the Factories Act 1961).It was held that the employer was liable under that section,but that the
employee's damages would be reduced by 80%to account for his own contributory negligence.(Stranks)
Volenti non fit injuria,(voluntary acceptance of risk)
Early in the industrial revolution,it was generally accepted that working in places like mines,factories and mills was inherently dangerous.Therefore when workers and others were injured in such places,no one was surprised,and as such they accepted any losses as a fact of life.
More recently,this concept has all but disappeared.There are still a few instances where a person undertaking a job,being in full command of the facts as to risk and likely consequences,willingly accepts such likely risks and results.
One such instance may be a scaffolder,who,being fully trained and equipped to erect scaffold,will accept a certain amount of danger and a lesser degree of protection.Equally,a professional rugby player may reasonably expect to be injured during a fair tackle,and as such could not look to sue the person who injures him,for any loss.
Defences open to employers in cases of alleged negligence
In a case of alleged negligence,the employer can use any one,or combination of defences. There are five such defences available,viz:
1.That there was no duty of care owed
2.There was a duty of care,but it was not broken,(reasonable care was taken)
3.There was a breach of duty,but no loss occurred,or any direct lossresult of such a breach.
4.A partial defence can be that there was some contributory negligence
5.The final defence is that the injured party,knowing the risks and consequences,voluntarily accepted such risks
普通法-侵权行为的疏忽
侵权行为的含义
侵权行为被定义为“民事不法行为的补救措施一种常见的法律行动是违约金, 并不是专门的违反合同或违反信托或其他的仅仅是公平的义务”(萨尔蒙德) 。
总的说来，侵权行为是一种民事过失，不同于刑事犯罪。一个人对另一个人犯下错误是侵权行为。 主要的侵权行为有:
-过失
-麻烦
-诽谤
-转换
-非法侵入商品
-冒犯他人
-侵入他人土地
过失侵权行为
什么是过失?
“过失是一个合理的人疏忽的行为, 引导在那些通常考虑调节人类事务的行为，会做什么, 而一个谨慎和理智的人不会做。”——在伯明翰自来水厂有限公司切诉艾德森(1956)。
疏忽或粗心的行为而伤害另一个人没有, 本身, 给行动在普通法的权利。损害赔偿可以被认为是一个行动之前, 有三个条件必须满足如下：
1、首先必须表明，在特定的情况下，部分被告有照顾原告的安全的一个法律责任。
2、其次，原告必须证明被告的过失行为违反普通法特殊照顾的义务。
3、第三， 原告必须已经收到伤害、损坏或其他损失作为被告的过失行为的直接结果。
所有这些因素共同构成过失侵权行为, 而且过失的人可能引起民事诉讼, 要求赔偿。
侵权和犯罪之间的重叠
我们通常认为杀人是犯罪，但是对被杀的原告来说是侵权行为, 而对他们的家属而言是过失杀人。偷窃是一种犯罪行为，但它也是侵占财产的侵权行为。作为一种犯罪，罪犯可以受到起诉和惩罚。作为一种侵权行为，它引起的损害赔偿诉讼。
基本上真正的说, 如果他们物理干扰原告或他们的财产，所有的犯罪都是侵权；至少，如果他们对原告造成实际损害。但是犯罪不是一般侵权, 尽管有潜在危险的, 但它并没有造成伤害。例如，危险驾驶是犯罪行为但是没有发生侵权没有造成伤害/破坏。
当一个单一的行为是犯罪以及侵权行为，刑事和民事赔偿可能会纠缠。违法者可能被作为刑事起诉和作为侵权行为人。
在温伯恩城市(1878)，在法院上诉之前引起争论，民事诉讼控告工厂占领者未能防护危险机械是否纳入工厂和车间法案，1878。法院上诉决定着，行动是谎言，他们的决定已被接受作为先例，并进一步通过上议院在随后的案件。
如果事故发生在员工工作的时候，由于雇主未能遵守法定要求强加于他/她(即工厂法案，1961委托的规定) ，然后雇主可能会发现自己被一个执行机构起诉和被员工控告侵权过失。受伤的员工有可能对雇主提起两个诉讼：
1、违反法定注意义务。
2、违反普通法注意义务。
普通法的注意义务
普通法对我们所有的人有责任尽力避免伤害对方。这适用于无论我们家庭, 道路使用者, 制造商或供应商的商品或从事商业、社会或体育活动受伤的风险。这适用于我们无论是户主，道路使用者，制造商或商品的供应商或从事其他业务，涉及风险的伤害他人的社交或体育活动。
案例:1932年多诺霍诉史蒂文森
一个男人从零售商那里购买一瓶被告生产的姜汁啤酒。男人把瓶子给他夫人的朋友，他夫人的朋友喝了瓶中的酒后生病。
此外封闭的姜汁啤酒, 瓶子也包含了已腐烂的蜗牛。瓶子是深色的玻璃, 结果这个蜗牛直到她重新装满的时候才发现。
多诺霍小姐不能起诉违反合同, 因为在第一个实例中她没有买姜汁啤酒。相反, 她凭借姜汁啤酒的制造商的过失起诉他们。
英国国会的上议院认为, 制造商确实欠消费者的职责义务, 因此, 应受罚的。
注:制造商欠了最终消费他们的产品的消费者的职责义务。
多诺霍诉史蒂文森是侵权行为法中的一种最重要的案件。自此以后, 司法解释概述如下：
“你必须采取合理的注意去避免某种作为或不作为，你能合理地预见可能损害你邻居的行为。” “谁是我的邻居”这个问题的答案是，这些人受我行为的影响是如此地紧密和直接，以致于我应该合理地考虑：当我打算去做或不做某种事情的时候，这种行为的结果会如何。”——阿特金勋爵的邻居原则
所以谁是可能我们的邻居?
根据侵权行为的一般规律，注意义务时, 当两个人如此密切和直接相关, 其中可能涉及的活动明显受伤的风险。例如，一个汽车司机欠行人、其他道路使用者和毗邻道路的财产所有者的注意义务。
医生、牙医、律师和顾问在执行他们的职责的时候欠了病人，客户或其他人与他们有一个专业的关系的注意义务。
雇主也欠员工的注意义务，承包商也欠房屋参观者的注意义务。
采取合理的注意义务
什么是合理的注意？在被告不得不采取积极措施来防止受伤之前什么程度的风险是必要的? 为了回答这些问题, 让我们看一下以下案例：
案例:博尔顿诉石头(1951)
一个板球俱乐部在他们的球场效力大约90年， 没有球袭击任何在附近的高速公路的地面上的人。一天，然而，不幸的石头小姐被一个拜访的击球手打出地面的球袭击。当时，她站在她房子外面的道路上。
英国上议院认为，既然这种事故发生的可能性很小，没有合理的人在板球俱乐部的委员会采取预防措施，如提高周边围墙的高度。
基于过失索赔因此失败了。当局的意见的结果是没有义务采取措施预防只不过是一个遥远的可能性危险。它首先必须显示是一个可能发生的事故，其次，如果它发生，它可能会造成伤害。
也就是在这种情况下, 板球俱乐部已采取合理的关注——外围的栏杆高度的增加是不合理的。 雇主的注意义务
雇主必须采取合理的关注不受制于员工不必要的风险。它是合理照顾他们在就业过程中的工人和其他员工的安全雇主的责任。这种责任特别是延伸到他们的工作场所工作、工厂、机械、方法和工作行为的安全。
如果一个工作比另一个更危险, 更大程度的必须注意部分雇主。如果雇主不能消除风险，至少他们必须采取合理的注意尽可能降低它。雇主必须采取合理的护理，以确保员工的工作场所的安全, 即使它包含在另一个工作占用的处所。
然而, 由于在这种情形下，那里的房屋不属于雇主，他们可以采取的措施是有限的。例如，如果员工是一个窗户清洁工在别人的场所，雇主通常不能确保所有的窗框都很整齐。然而, 他们必须确保提供适当的安全设备和适当的指示。
案例:威尔逊诉克莱德煤炭有限公司 (1938)
英国上议院认为, 雇主采取合理的照顾工人的安全的个人责任是3倍：
这需要它们：
1、提供安全的工厂和机器。
2、确保他们雇用合格的员工。
3、提供安全系统的工作。
在这件案例下, 当运输设备投入运行时一个矿工离开坑。在他有时间达到避车洞前，他被挤到了墙上。运输设备正在运转而早班下班被认为是一个不安全的行为。
在拉蒂默诉A.E.C. 有限公司(1952), 辛格尔顿法官说, “雇主的职责是采取合理的行动对他的人, 看到他的人并不暴露在不必要的风险。义务延伸到他们所工作的大楼、工厂，并至少在某些情况下，它包括一个适当的系统工作提供”。
司法解释已经表明雇主合理的提供:
-安全厂房/设备
-主管人员
-安全系统的工作
- 适当的监督
- 安全的建筑物
- 安全的环境。
此外，用人单位将需要确定任何工作场所的危害，确保：
1、员工意识到任何与工作相关的危险。
2、员工知道针对这些危险必须采取的预防措施。
3、预防措施必须总是可用的。即用人单位必须运行在一个精力充沛的安全活动来获取消息。 雇主没有通过发行、说和眼睛保护履行他/她的普通法注意义务, 然后忘记这件事。雇主必须教育员工，告诉他们：
1、飞行粒子的危险。
2、需要穿保护眼睛。
3、在哪里得到一个替换等。
团体训练和个别指导将在许多情况下是必要的。雇主必须确保员工使用预防措施比如眼睛保护。必须坚持雇主提供预防措施的监督, 否则雇主可能在事故发生后会被追究法律责任。
不仅雇主对雇员有注意义务, 而且雇主也欠游客的注意义务。
风险的大小
雇主付出的关心程度、所需的精力和金钱需要，主要取决于风险的大小。
在爱德华兹诉英国国家煤炭局(1949)，阿斯奎斯法官说，“风险的定量计算必须要放在同一个标度，避免风险涉及的牺牲的必要措施是放在另一个标度”。
在标度的的一个终点，只有一个极小可能性的伤害, 因此不需要采取预防措施。
在标度的的另一个终点，从事高度危险活动的人们需要一个严格的注意标准。
风险的大小取决于事故发生的概率和事故发生的严重性。
即两个因素：
1、事实上造成伤害的可能性。
2、伤害风险的严重性。
首先，事故发生的可能性越大，防止它的责任就越大。如果只有一个远程危险的可能性，需要预防措施通常是降低的。如果危险只有一个极小的可能性，需要的预防措施通常是大大减少的。
雇主确定风险大小的时候，必须考虑第二个因素损伤的潜在严重性。发生几率非常小的事故仍然需要严格的预防措施，但由此事故造成的伤害，有可能实际上发生的结果会很严重。
案例: 帕里斯诉斯黛布尼镇议会(1951)
雇主知道只有一只眼睛的雇员必须佩戴防护眼罩, 但是其他员工不需要。尽管他另一个的好眼睛遭受伤害的可能性是轻微的, 但是帕里斯无疑是很严重的, 因为它导致的结果是完全失明。
即1、帕里斯受到伤害和同类情况的员工做同样的工作的可能性是很小的。2、伤害风险严重性很
大，如果他失去了另一只好眼睛，他会完全失明, 而其他员工仍有一只眼睛。
普通法雇主的注意义务的延伸
帕里斯诉斯黛布尼镇议会(1951)也显示了普通法注意义务着眼于雇主的一个扩展。在雇主知道员工在某些方面是残疾的, ,因为这样的残疾，然后雇主必须做出更多的努力, 以确保残疾人员工不受伤。因此, 一个更大的注意义务应给予一些残疾员工, 除了这些之外还应给予正常健康没有残疾的员工。
这个雇主的扩展的注意义务也适用于在工作起初时候可能不能鉴别工作场所所有的危险的年轻人和新员工。
替代责任
雇主对雇员的疏忽或非法行为有责任可能被追究民事或刑事责任，, 即使员工可以展示故意违反了用人单位表达指令。这就是所谓的替代责任的学说, 即一方成为另一个的行为负责者。
如果雇主自己一方的过失或非法行为, 或另一人的帮凶的非法活动, 他们一起承担个人责任和其他的人责任。
对于存在替代责任, 必须证明如下:
1、被牵连的人是被告员工
2、员工是在雇佣的期间
注:如果造成损失并不是一个直接员工，而是一个临时的员工，用人单位的“控制”下，(被告知该做什么和怎么做) ，然后他们可以被视为一个“名义员工”，而这样，雇主将为他们的行为负责。
共同过失
法律改革(共同过失) 法案，1945年, 美国证券交易委员会1(1)，提供由两个或两个以上的人的错，责任或过错造成的损伤(因此赔偿) ，必须一致分摊一个或两个应承担的责任。
因此，如果员工的受伤, 确定是雇主和雇员都出毛病(如违反法定要求) ， 诉讼要求赔偿损失时, ，他的雇主可以辩解员工, 通过他/她的过失未能照顾自己的健康和安全，应承担部分责任, 损害赔偿按照那样的程度比例减少。
经典案例说明这个操作规范(在实践中被法官应用非常广泛) 乌丁诉波特兰水泥制造商有限公司(1965)。
在这个案例中，这个员工是机器看守者, 企图取回一只鸽子，靠在没有授权他的工厂的一个旋转轴的一部分受伤了，失去了一条胳膊。他的工作是限制于水泥包装厂但他的受伤发生在除尘设备。
他起诉他的雇主14条违约(1)1937年的工厂法(1961年工厂法的前身) 。这是认为雇主应承担部分责任，但员工的赔偿将会减少80%，对自己的共同过失负责。(斯特兰克斯)
对同意者不构成侵害，(自愿承担风险)
在工业革命初期，人们普遍认为工作在矿山、工厂和作坊是内在的危险。因此，当工人和其他人员在这些地方受伤，没有人感到惊讶，同样的他们接受任何损失已经是一个不争的事实。
最近以来，这个观念几乎消失了。仍有一些例子是一个人担任一份工作，说到风险和可能的后果仍然完全听受指挥，心甘情愿地接受这样的可能风险和结果。
其中一个实例可能是充分的训练和装备建造脚手架的架子工，会承担一定的危险得到一个较小程度的保护。同样, 一个职业橄榄球运动员在一个公平的擒住并摔倒而受伤可能会理性的接受，依其身份不会起诉伤害他的人要求赔偿损失。
倘若涉嫌过失，雇主可以辩护。
倘若涉嫌过失，用人单位可以使用任何一个或联合的辩护。
有五个有效的辩护，即：
1、没有注意义务亏欠。
2、注意义务, 但没有被打断，采取合理的注意。
3、有失职，但没有造成损失，或破坏造成的任何直接损失。
4、部分辩护可以考虑一些共同过失。
5、最后的辩护是受伤的一方，了解风险和后果，自愿接受此类风险。