Question on Negligence
关于疏忽的问题

Wang, a student at Kuala Lumpur College, is busy studying for his final examinations. It is 9:00
Wang 是吉隆坡学院（Kuala Lumpur College）的学生，他正忙着准备期末考试。现在是 9：00

at night and he decides to go to the student canteen (operated by the Kuala Lumpur College) to
晚上，他决定去学生食堂（由吉隆坡学院经营）去

eat because he is hungry. He purchases a bowl of chicken noodle soup and a beef bun. While
吃东西是因为他饿了。他买了一碗鸡肉面汤和一个牛肉包。而

carrying his tray of food he slips on a puddle of soya milk that someone has spilt on the floor.
他端着一盘食物 ，在有人洒在地板上的一滩豆浆上滑倒。

As a result of the accident his right arm is burnt by the hot soup, and his left leg is badly broken.
由于事故，他的右臂被热汤烧伤，左腿严重骨折。

He spends three weeks in hospital and misses his final examinations.
他在医院住了三个星期，错过了期末考试。

Fully advise Wang of his rights (if any) in the tort of negligence. Use case law to justify your
充分告知 Wang 他在疏忽侵权行为中的权利（如有）。使用判例法来证明您的

answer.
答。

Suggested Answer to Question on Negligence
关于疏忽的问题的建议答案

In assessing whether Kuala Lumpur College (“KLC”) is liable in negligence to the injured party,
在评估吉隆坡学院 （“KLC”） 是否对受害方承担疏忽责任时，

Wang, it is necessary to consider the essential elements of that tort and apply them to the facts of
Wang 案中，有必要考虑该侵权行为的基本要素，并将其应用于

the problem. In order to establish liability in negligence the plaintiff must establish the existence
问题。为了证明疏忽责任，原告必须证明存在

of a duty of care, breach of duty, causation and resultant damage. These elements must be
注意义务、违反义务、因果关系和由此造成的损害。这些元素必须为

considered in that order, and without one of the elements liability will not be proven.
按该顺序考虑，如果没有其中任何一项要素， 则不会证明责任 。

Issue: Whether KLC owes a duty of care to Wang?
问题：智航是否 对王负有 c 责任 ？

In Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] All ER Rep 1, the court explained that everyone owes a duty of
在 Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] All ER Rep 1 一案中 ，法院解释说，每个人都负有

care to his neighbour. The court laid down a broad definition of the duty of care:
关心他的邻居。法院对谨慎责任规定了广泛的定义：

“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee
“ 您必须采取合理的谨慎措施，以避免您可以合理预见的行为或不作为

would be likely to injure your neighbour”. In other words, the duty of care arises in circumstances where damage is foreseeable.
很可能会伤害你的邻居 ”。 换句话说，注意义务是在可预见损害的情况下产生的。

For example, if X drives his car carelessly, it is foreseeable that he will cause an accident. The duty of care is owed to persons who are described as being a “neighbour‟. The legal answer to the question “who is my neighbour?, is 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.”
例如， 如果 X 不小心驾驶他的车，可以预见他会造成事故。 注意义务是对被描述为“邻居”的人负有义务 。“谁是我的邻居？ 是那些与我的行为密切相关和直接影响的人 ，以至于当我将注意力集中在被质疑的行为或不作为时，我应该合理地考虑他们受到如此的影响 。

In other words, everyone owes a duty of care to persons they ought to foresee being affected by
换句话说，每个人都对他们应该预见到会受到影响的人负有谨慎的责任

their activities. For example, X drives his car carelessly and causes an accident which injures a
他们的活动。例如，X 不小心驾驶他的汽车并造成事故，导致

pedestrian. X should have foreseen that both fellow road users and pedestrians could be affected by
行人。X 应该已经预见到其他道路使用者和行人都可能受到以下因素的影响

his carefulness.
他的谨慎。

The decision in Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman & Others [1990] 1 All ER 568 has also
Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman & Others [1990] 1 All ER 568 的裁决 也同样具有

emphasised another requirement – whether it is just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.
强调另一项要求 – 施加谨慎责任是否公正合理。

Reasonableness is determined according to commercial practicality, fairness, and public policy.
合理性是根据商业实用性、公平性和公共政策来确定的。

However, the three requirements – foreseeablity of harm, proximity (the concept of neighbourhood)
然而，这三个要求 – 伤害的可预见性、接近性（邻里的概念）

and reasonableness are not rigid but interdependent factors to be taken into consideration in
和合理性不是僵化的，而是需要考虑的相互依存的因素

deciding whether a duty of care exists between parties.
决定双方之间是否存在谨慎义务。

Applying the test to the case, there can be no doubt that KLC should have foreseen potential harm
将测试应用于本案，毫无疑问，KLC 应该已经预见到潜在的危害

to Wang and other customers if the floor of the canteen is not kept clean or, more specifically, if
如果食堂地板没有保持清洁，或者更具体地说，如果

food spills are not cleared away expeditiously. Any reasonable person operating a restaurant/canteen
食物泄漏没有得到迅速清理。任何合理的人经营餐厅/食堂

must be aware of the possibility of customers spilling food and/or drink. And any reasonable person
必须意识到乘客可能会洒出食物和/或饮料。以及任何理性的人

directing his mind to the puddle of soya milk can be expected to foresee that it poses a risk to the
将他的注意力转向豆浆水坑可以预见到它会对

unwary customers who may step into it and lose his or her footing. These customers would be the
粗心的客户可能会踏入其中并失去立足点。这些客户将是

canteen's neighbours and to them, KLC owes a duty of care.
食堂的邻居和他们都负有照顾责任。

Wang belongs to this class and is thus owed a duty of care by KLC. KLC cannot reasonably argue that it would not expect university students to spill milk on the floor. It also cannot argue that it was not aware of the spill. Part of the obligation of running a restaurant (and being the occupier of premises) is to look out for such spills and to mop them as quickly as possible. As the operator of the canteen, KLC owes a duty of care to Wang since it is reasonable to foresee that its action (or more accurately, inaction) will directly affect him, based on the neighbour principle and the proximity between the parties.
Wang 属于这一类， 因此 KLC 负有注意义务 。KLC 不能合理地争辩说它不会阻止大学生 将牛奶洒在地板上。它也不能辩称它不知道泄漏事件。 经营餐厅（以及作为场所的占用者）的部分义务是留意此类溢出物并尽快拖地 。 作为食堂的经营者，KLC 对 Wang 负有谨慎责任，因为根据邻里原则和双方之间的接近性，可以合理地预见其行为（或更准确地说，不作为）将直接影响他 。

Issue: Did KLC breach the standard of care required of them?
问题：KLC 是否违反了对他们的护理标准要求？

Once a legal duty of care has been established, the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant has in
一旦确立了法律上的注意义务，原告必须证明被告已经

fact breached that duty. This is decided by means of a test which is described as the the reasonable man test”. Granted, a person in a given situation must use care for another; the question is, what standard of reasonable care is he required in law to use? The standard of reasonable care requires that the person concerned should do what a reasonable man would have done in the same situation. He is judged by what the courts consider are the standards of an ordinary reasonable person. This test is an objective test judged through the eyes of the reasonable man: Bourhill v Young[1943] AC 92; Bolton v Stone [1951]; Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951]).
事实违反了该义务。这是通过一项被描述为合理的人测试来决定的”。 诚然 ，一个人在特定情况下必须照顾他人;问题是， 法律要求他使用什么标准的合理谨慎？合理谨慎的标准要求有关人士应采取一名合理的人在相同情况下会做的事。他是根据法院认为的普通理性人的标准来判断的。这项测试是通过合理的人的眼睛来判断的客观测试 ：Bourhill v Young[1943] AC 92;Bolton v Stone [1951] （博尔顿诉斯通案 [1951]）;Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951]）。

Applying this to the case, KLC has breached a duty of care owed to Wang since KLC should have
将此应用于本案，KLC 违反了对 Wang 负有的注意义务，因为 KLC 应该这样做

been aware of the spill and cleaned it up quickly. Alternatively, if it could not clean it up, it could
知道泄漏并迅速清理。或者，如果它无法清理它，它可以

have barricaded or fenced or placed a warning sign in or adjacent to it. In failing to act so as a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances, KLC has breached the duty of care it owed Wang.
在其内部或附近设置路障或围栏或放置警告标志。KLC 没有按照一个合理的人在这种情况下应该做的事情行事， 违反了其对 Wang 应尽的注意义务 。

Issue: Whether KLC caused the damage to Wang?
问题：KLC 是否造成了对 Wang 的损害？

Wang must now establish causation, i.e. the connection between the breach and the injury. This is known as causation in fact and is established by the use of the “but for test”: Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969). It should be noted that when a person commits a tort causing loss to others, that loss should never be too remote a consequence for damages to be awarded by the court for compensation. In other words, the damage must be caused by the breach of duty. If the damage is caused by some other factor, there is no causal link, and the defendant will not be liable. Wang is injured by KLC‟s failure to clean up the spilt milk. In applying the “but for‟ test, KLC will be liable for Wang’s injuries.
Wang 现在必须确定因果关系，即违约与伤害之间的联系。这实际上被称为因果关系，并且通过使用 “ 非进行测试 ” 来建立 ：Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington 医院管理委员会（1969）。 应注意的是， 当一个人犯下侵权行为，导致他人蒙受损失时，该损失绝不应太过遥远 ， 以致法院应判给损害赔偿 。换句话说， 损害必须是由违反义务造成的。如果损害是由其他因素造成的，则不存在因果关系， 被告将不承担任何责任 。Wang 因 KLC 未能清理溢出的牛奶而受伤。在应用 “ 非 ”测试时，KLC 将对 Wang 的伤害负责 。

Issue: Whether the damages incurred by Wang is foreseeable?
问题：Wang 遭受的损失是否可预见？

In order to claim damages in negligence, the damage must be of a foreseeable kind: The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] AC 388). This is based on the reasonable man test as well, that is, the damage must be reasonably foreseeable by a person in the same position as KLC. It can reasonably be argued that any canteen operator in the position of KLC can foresee harm of the nature incurred by Wang, the arm being burnt by the hot soup, and the leg being injured.
为了因疏忽而要求损害赔偿，损害必须是  可预见的种类 ：The Wagon Mound （No 1） [1961] AC 388）。 这也是基于合理的人测试，即损害必须由与 KLC 处于相同位置的人合理预见 。 可以合理地争辩说，任何处于 KLC 位置的食堂经营者都可以预见到 Wang 所造成的自然伤害，手臂 被热汤烫伤 ， 腿部受伤。

It is equally foreseeable that if Wang is injured, he might require hospitalization. Thus, both his injuries and hospitalization are foreseeable consequences of KLC's breach of duty and are recoverable. The issue that remains is whether KLC should be liable to compensate Wang for making him miss his final examinations.
同样 可以预见的是，如果王某受伤，他可能需要住院治疗。因此 ，他的受伤和住院都是 KLC 违反职责的可预见后果 ，并且可以追讨。 剩下的问题是，KLC 是否应该负责赔偿 Wang 错过期末考试。

There are two aspects to this issue. The first is whether it was foreseeable that Wang would miss the examination by reason of the soya spill. The answer to this has to be in the affirmative. If KLC had directed its mind at the question of who would be injured by the spill, the answer would have been its customers. And could it, as the operator of a student canteen, have foreseen that the customers would include students? Again the answer has to be in the affirmative. And could KLC have foreseen that its failure to maintain safe premises could injure a student so badly as to make him miss an examination? The answer has to be, “Yes”.
这个问题有两个方面。首先是是否可以预见到王某会因为大豆泄漏而错过检查。这个问题的答案必须是肯定的。如果 KLC 将注意力集中在谁会因泄漏而受伤的问题上， 那么答案将是它的客户。作为学生食堂的运营商，它是否已经预见到客户会包括学生？ 同样 ，答案必须是 肯定的。KLC 能否预见到，它未能维护安全的场所可能会对学生造成严重伤害，以至于使他错过考试？答案必须是“是的”。

The other issue relating to Wang’s missing the exam has to do with the extent of Wang’s injuries.
另一个与王错过检查有关的问题与王的伤势程度有关。

KLC may argue that there is no way in which they could have foreseen that Wang’s injuries would
KLC 可能会争辩说，他们无法预见 Wang 的伤势会

require extended hospitalization. In other words, that the damages are too remote. That argument
需要延长住院时间。换句话说，损害太微不足道。那个论点

can be simply disposed by pointing out that that the defendant is liable if he can foresee that the
可以简单地指出，如果被告能够预见

plaintiff will be injured although he can't foresee the exact injury or the extent of the injuries:
尽管原告无法预见确切的伤害或受伤的程度， 但他会受伤：

Bradford v. Robinson Rentals Ltd [1967] 1 All ER 267; Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) [1961]).
Bradford v. Robinson Rentals Ltd [1967] 1 All ER 267; Overseas Tankship（UK） Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd （The Wagon Mound No 1） [1961]）。

A further argument that KLC may put forth is that being scalded and having a fractured leg may
KLC 可能提出的另一个论点是，被烫伤和腿部骨折可能会

cause one to miss the examinations in the day or two immediately following the injury but do not
导致一个人在受伤后的一两天内错过检查，但不要

necessarily prevent a person from appearing from the whole of his final examination. KLC may
必然阻止一个人参加他的整个期末考试。KLC 可以

well be right that most people would have been able to attend at least part of the examination. It may
嗯 ，大多数人至少能够参加部分考试，这是对的。它可能会

well be that Wang is extra-sensitive to pain or took longer than the ordinary individual to recover.
好吧，Wang 对疼痛特别敏感，或者比普通人需要更长的时间来恢复。

But if that is so, then KLC must take its victim as it finds him under the “egg-shell skull rule”. The
但如果是这样的话， 那么 KLC 必须根据“蛋壳头骨规则”找到受害者。这

later states that the wrong-doer must take his "victim as he finds him". Accordingly, where a
后来说，犯错者必须“找到他的受害者 ”。因此 ， 如果

plaintiff suffers foreseeable personal injury which is exacerbated by some pre-existing physical
原告遭受了可预见的人身伤害，而一些预先存在的身体伤害会加剧

or psychic abnormality, the compensation payable cannot be reduced by taking this fact into
或精神异常，不能因为考虑到这一事实而减少应支付的赔偿

account: Robinson v. Post Office [1974] 2 All ER 737
account：Robinson v. Post Office [1974] 2 All ER 737

Defence:
防御：

Consideration of whether there is anything which would reduce the amount of damages needs to
考虑是否有任何因素可以减少损害赔偿的金额，需要

be addressed. This calls for a consideration of whether there was contributory negligence by
被解决。这要求考虑

Wang. It is crystal clear that Wang did not in any way contribute to his own injuries.
王。很明显，王没有以任何方式导致自己的受伤。

Conclusion:
结论：

In my opinion all the elements of negligence has been fulfilled based on the facts, therefore KLC will is liable to Wang for negligence.
在我看来，根据事实，所有疏忽的要素都已得到满足，因此 KLC Will 应因疏忽而对 Wang 负责。

NOTE:
注意：

The approach and arguments (cases referred) put forward are only a general guide. Style of writing, arguments and opinions may defer from individual to individual, as long as the legal issues are clearly addressed in relation to the facts. In exams, there will always be time constraints as well.
所提出的方法和论点（所引用的案例）只是一个一般性的指南。写作风格、论点和观点可能因人而异 ，只要法律问题与事实相关。 在考试中，也总会有时间限制。

It is acceptable in exams, just to write the case and the year only. Not necessary for full citation of the case. On average, in an exam, not more than two cases to explain a particular legal principle would be sufficient.
在考试中是可以接受的，只需写案例和年份即可。不需要完整引用案例。平均而言，在一次考试中，解释特定法律原则的案例不超过两个就足够了。