ACCA F 知识要点
第6章 The law of torts and professional negligence 侵权和专业疏忽
1）侵权的意义
‐ A tort is ‘a wrongful act against an individual which gives rise to a civil claim’.侵权是对他人的不当行为，引起民事诉讼。一个是人身权，一个是财产权。
‐ As a tort is a breach of a legal duty, there is no liability unless the law recognizes that the duty exists. 正常情况下，一个人不会对另一个人有任何义务，除非法律规定。所以，违反合同不是侵权。侵权的双方不存在合同关系，只是违反了法定义务。
2）the tort of ‘passing off.’假冒侵权
‐ Accused of misrepresenting themselves to the public in a calculated manner designed to allow them to benefit from parties goodwill.从他人良好信誉中获利，通常是假冒trademark商标，company names假冒公司名称。
案例：Stringfellow v McCain (1) 夜总会注册商标诉薯片公司，并不侵犯商标专用权，不同类。 案例：HFC Bank v Midland Bank (2) HFC告HSBC过于相近，法院不支持，因为名字明显差异。 ‐ there is a chance of ‘genuine public confusion’ all lost trading profits can be awarded to the injured party in addition to an injunction over the use of names.引起公众困惑，受损害方可以要
求颁布禁令，禁止对方使用自己公司的名字和商标。
3）Explain the tort of negligence including the duty of care and its breach 疏忽侵权
●Negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care, which results in damage to another.违法
法定注意的职责，使别人遭受损失。（如在斑马线上撞到人）
For an action in negligence to succeed, the claimant must prove the following (大多数侵权案件原告举证，也有例外考点)以下是需要被举证的：
a) A duty of care is owed to the claimant 被告对原告拥有注意的责任
b)There has been a breach of that duty of care, being that the defendant has failed to act reasonably由于被告没有合理行为，违反了注意责任，
c) The breach of duty caused the harm to the claimant被告违法导致了原告的伤害
d) The losses were not too remote 这个损害是直接的
●Duty of care and breach 注意的责任和违反
?A person is not automatically liable for the wrongful acts they commit.一个人对于不当行为不是自动有注意的责任。The first step in establishing liability is to prove that the defendant owed a duty of care to the injured party.第一步是证实被告是否有注意的责任。侵权的定义源于：
案例：Donoghue v Stevenson (3) via the neighbour principle邻人原则。
A买了姜汁啤酒，A的女友喝到啤酒，发现里面有蜗牛。生产厂商辩称买啤酒的是A，与女友没有合同关系。法院不支持，法官创造了法律：‘you owe a duty of care to anybody who it may be reasonably foreseen will be affected by your negligent acts or omissions’ 生产商对于任何受祺疏忽影响的人都有注意的责任。
这个裁判的结果：这条法律范围太广，之后收窄subsequently narrowed this duty in many areas as seen in follow on auditors.
案例：Caparo v Dickman (4)考点 via a three stage test: （current qualification of the duty of care） ?Was the harm caused reasonably foreseeable? 损害是否合理预见？
?Is there sufficient proximity between the defendant and the claimant? 原被告是否充分接近？ ?Would it be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care? 强加责任是否公平正义合理？
A为B做审计，C是B的股东。A的审计报告显示业绩很好股票大涨。结果A审计报告出错，另C对B的追加投资造成很大损失。C诉A。此案中，法官收窄了审计师对他人的注意职责。因为大多数人并不会因为审计报告追加投资，而且审计报告的目的不是为了投资，审计师不对潜在的投资者有责任。
●Breach of duty of care失职
一旦证明存在注意的责任，还要证明被告有失职 ‘failed to act reasonably’ 。
案例：Blyth v Birmingham (5) 议员家门口的水管结冰爆管，家里水漫金山，诉市政工程。所有市政工程对施工沿线居民有注意的责任，因为1一切都按照法律规定排管2降温事发突然，天气突变是不可预见的，不构成失职。
This is an objective test, but not one intended to condone the incompetence of the wrongdoer.这一个客观的测试，来判定是否称职，但并不是允许有过错的行为者。
The standard of care owed by an individual defined in Blyth can be adjusted by the following:关于个人如何判断
?(a) Skilled persons 专业技能的人，有更高的注意的标准。只要称职，就不构成侵权。 ?(b) Likelihood of injury 受伤害的可能性– 可能性高，被告更加应当履行好关注义务。
案例：Bolton v Stone (6) 原告在板球场旁边走过，板球场内的运动员恰好把球击中原告。板球场的篮网设置17英尺合理，法院判定板球场无责。
?(c) The seriousness of the risk 风险的严重性–风险越高，被告更加应当有减轻风险的义务。 案例：Paris v Stepney (7) A一个眼镜白内障，另一个眼睛视力也不佳，他为B公司工作。工作中A夹到手，告B公司赔偿。法官认为A的工种对于他的状态是高危伤害，B不应安排A
在这个岗位上，B是有过错的。（注意：只要雇伤残人士，就有注意的责任，不管是否合理。） ?(d) Cost and practicability 成本和实用性的关系–可预见的风险必须在降低风险的成本和实用性间保持平衡，以减少伤害。
案例：Latimer v AEC Ltd (9) A公司的厂房里油翻了，用木屑铺满来防止滑倒，但B滑倒。法院认为A已经花了较大费用来降低滑倒风险，该措施的实用性足以，无需对B承担额外的责任。
?(e)Common practice通常做法：如果能证明大家通常是这么做的，我也这么做也算是满足了注意责任，除非能证明通常做法也是有疏忽的。
?(f) Social benefit社会利益：如果能证明行为对社会有利，被告仍然受保护免责，即使他的行为存在风险。关注点：公众利益>公众风险。
the burden of proof in tort lies with the claimant通常举证责任在原告。‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’ 事实本身即是说明，则举证责任在被告。
举例：A在两个围墙中间的过道走，被墙上的桶砸到，A无需举证，反而是业主来证明自己没有侵权责任。
4. Explain the meaning of causality and remoteness of damage 因果关系
4.1 Damage or loss 纯经济损失
得到赔偿的条件：
1) personal injury个人受到人身伤害；
2) damage to property财产受损；
3) financial loss directly connected personal injury 因人身伤害造成的经济损失，如年终奖可赔
4) pure financial loss – physical 纯经济损失很少数情况可以赔
案例：Spartan steel and alloys ltd v Martin & co Ltd 1973 锅炉损坏可以赔，但利润损失不能赔 4.2 To prove a clear link between the harm cased and breach of duty of care受伤害由注意疏忽引起：two‐limbed test:
4.1.1 Causation in fact 事实上的因果关系
‐ “but for” test 要不是测试… 如果没有被告的行为，就不会有这个损害
案例：Barnett v Chelsea (10) 病人去诊所，医生推荐他去找家庭医生，2小时后病人死亡。尸检表示砷中毒，辩护律师解释砷的化验需要8小时，而且当时医生无法判断是砷中毒，所以不是病人死亡的直接原因。法院判医生无罪。
4.2.2 Causation in law 在法律上的因果关系
‘novus actus interveniens’ 新行为的介入，则被告对原告不构成侵权，具体有下面3中情况：break the link between the defendant’s tort and the eventual harm suffered and include:
a) A natural event –earthquakes, floods fires etc 无法预见的自然事件
b) Act of a third party 第三方的行为
案例：Knightly v Johns (12) 大货车撞了隧道，隧道没有坏，但警察需在隧道门口站岗来确保是否有坍塌事故。但死者警察头坚持要进，结果隧道坍塌，警察头死亡。家属认为货车司机不撞隧道，死者就不会死亡；司机认为是小警察失职放人进入，造成死亡。法院支持司机。
c) Act of the claimant 原告本身自己的行为
案例：McKew v Holland (13) 云梯坏了，原告自己从高处跳下，造成骨折。自己行为自己负责。
4.3 Remoteness 损害之隔绝考点
‐ The claimant ‘reasonably foreseeable’ 只要被告（非原告）合理预见，就需要规避。
案例：The Wagon Mound (11) 一边在卸油，一边在焊接，火星飘到油面，于是码头着火。被告在卸油，但这个行为是无法合理预见火灾的，所以不构成侵权。
‐ The ‘thin skull principle’ 老弱病残人士总是免责的，被告还是要承担侵权责任。The principle states that ‘you must take your victim as you find them’ 你必须要关照他们。
案例：Smith v Leech (8) 癌症病人做琉璃制品过程中烫伤，最后死亡。公司并不知道该员工有癌症，无法合理预见其死亡，但仍然要承担责任。
5. Defences to actions in negligence 侵权行为构成后，原告对自己的辩护考点
a) Avoid – 取代责任，员工责任由雇主承担under the law of vicarious liability
案例：Limpus v London General Omnibus Co (14) 公交车司机超车过程中，把行人撞到，司机是工作时间工作路线工作职责，责任由雇主承担。
案例：Beard v London General Omnibus Co (15) 公交车司机绕道接朋友，偏离工作路线上撞到人，在非职务范围内，责任由自己承担。
b) Avoid –‘Volenti non fit injuria’ 自愿承担风险(that to which you consent) 例如:原告自愿搭乘醉酒驾驶claimant knew of, voluntarily consented to, such risks (all 3 elements must be proven). c) Reduce – 与有过失，分担过失，降低赔偿一般在10‐75%范围内，但也有100%的案例。 where proved claimant had contributed to their injury in some way
案例：Fitzgerald v Lane & Patel (16) 原告自己闯红灯，被AB两辆车撞到，法官判原告自己承担50%，AB各分担25%。
d) Limit –The Limitation Act 1980 诉讼期限：人身伤害时限3年；其他案件，发生日起的6年。 6．duty of care of accountants and auditors 会计和审计的注意职责
6.1 Negligent misstatements考点
传统上无责，但从“Hedley Byrne v Heller”开始，建立了“negligent misstatements疏忽性的虚伪陈词”。
案例：Hedley Byrne v Heller （20）广告告诉问银行职员某客户资信如何，银行职员说很好（但提议后表示：仅供参考，不负责任）事后客户破产，广告公司未收到款项。因为有免责条款，法官判银行职员无罪。自此，关注这个问题，创立法律：在下述情况下，专业人士有关注职责：
a) A client requested a professional opinion from their accountant/auditor 客户要求专业意见
b) The accountant/auditor gave an opinion acting in a professional capacity. The client relied upon the opinion, when it was deemed reasonable to do so 客户依赖于此意见
c) The client suffered an economic loss as a result of reliance upon the opinion造成损失
满足上述条件，侵权人承担责任，subject to the usual rules governing breach of duty, causation and remoteness (除非协议里写明有效的免责条款).
6.2 Accountants and auditors考点
It is still necessary to establish that you were owed a duty of care at the time the negligent misstatement occurred. When performing audit services the duty of care was defined in Caparo v Dickman :
?‘The duty of care when accounts are prepared extends only to the members of a company. This does not extend to members as individuals, or to potential purchasers of shares in a company.’关注职责只对公司和股东有效，不对个人和潜在投资者承担责任。
例外：This presumption can be rebutted where the accounts were prepared after express representations that they would be当会计审计报告是为收购所准备的，则对收购方承担责任。 案例：Morgan Crucible v Hill Samuel Bank（18）（used for the purposes of a takeover）
案例：ADT v BDO Binder Hamlyn（19）（where an express statement is given by the auditor）A 收购C公司，委托审计公司B参加全程会议，收购后A发现B公司的审计报告错误导致收购损失6500W美金。
6.3 Limitation of auditors’ liability （BDO案件赔偿太高，所以形成了审计师的责任限制）
Per the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) it is now possible for an auditor to limit their liability for ‘negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust occurring in the course of the audit of accounts’ to a stated amount. 根据06年公司法，审计师的疏忽责任被限制在了一定数字内，公司还要通过resolution决议，来确定这个数字。
In the event that an auditor comes to rely on such a clause they may then be required to prove the liability amount is ‘fair and reasonable’. In determining such amounts the courts will have regard for: 法院也会评估这个数字，法院要求证明“是公正合理的”，从以下要素判断：
a) The auditor’s responsibilities 审计师的责任
b) nature and purpose of the auditor’s contractual obligations to the company 合同的性质和目的
c) The professional standards expected of him 专业预期标准
The liability limitation agreement must be approved on an annual basis对于限制责任的协议必须每年一审; with the company able to withdraw from the agreement via an ordinary resolution at any point before such an agreement become enforceable.当公司认为数字不合理，也可以通过ordinary resolution来撤回。
§PPT答案： B、C、A、D、A、C、B、B