| 1. |
柯伍陳律師行在其網頁 http://www.onc.hk/zh_HK/employers-liability-towards-unauthorized-act-of-employees/ 的介紹； |
2. |
香港大學法律學者、Michael Jackson、在他所寫的 Criminal Law in Hong Kong 一書 (ISBN 962 209 558 5) 第 388 頁寫出「Vicarious liability arises when one person (D) is deemed to be liable for the wrongful acts of another (P). In the law of tort, for example, a master is generally liable for torts committed by his or her servants in the course of the employee's employment.」； |
| 3. |
法律學者、DK Srivastava 和 AD Tennekone、在他們的寫的 The Law of Tort in Hong Kong ISBN 0-409-99636-X (pb) 第 245 頁寫出「Vicarious means delegate, representative or substitute and vicarious liability means liability incurred by a person through the act or omissions of his delegate, representative or substitute」 |
4. |
Hon Fok JA in Chong Ngan Seng v China Harbour Engineering Co. Ltd. and other [CACV 54/2012] said 「27. It is clear that vicarious liability on the part of the owner of a vehicle may attach by reason of the driver being the agent of the owner. As Lord Wilberforce observed, in Launchbury v Morgans [1973] AC 127 at p. 135B and D-E:
“… I regard it as clear that in order to fix vicarious liability upon the owner of a car in such a case as the present it must be shown that the driver was using it for the owner’s purposes, under delegation of a task or duty.…
I accept entirely that ‘agency’ in contexts such as these is merely a concept, the meaning and purpose of which is to say ‘is vicariously liable,’ and that either expression reflects a judgment of value – respondeat superior is the law saying that the owner ought to pay. It is this imperative which the common law has endeavoured to work out through the cases. The owner ought to pay, it says, because he has authorised the act, or requested it, or because the actor is carrying out a task or duty delegated, or because he is in control of the actor’s conduct.”」 |
| 5. |
Lord Wilberforce delivering the opinion of Privy Council in Kooragag Investment Pty. Ltd. v Richardson and Wrench Ltd. [1982] AC462 or [1981] UKPC 30 (page 4) said 「... The manner in which the common law has dealth with the liability of employers for acts of employees (masters for servants, principals for agents) has been progressive: the tendency has been toward more liberal protection of innocent third parties. At the same time recognition has been given by the law to the movement which has been taken place from relationship - akin to that of slavery - .......If committed for the benefit of the employer and while doing his business, principle and logic demand that the employer should be held liable, and for some time the law rested at this point. The classic judgment of Willes J. in Barwick v English Joint Stock Bank (1867) L.R.2 Ex 259 states the principle thus (page 286) : In all these cases it may be said ..... that the master has not authorized the act. It is true, he has not authorized the particular act, but he has put the agent in his place to do that class of acts, and must be answerable for the manner in which the agent has conducted himself in doing the business which it was the act of his master to place him in......」 |
|