L10 Web Stats Reporter 3.15
Topics



The right to sue and liability for compensation under personal injury proceedings
Compensation for the victims
Legal procedures that are involved in personal injury proceedings
Case illustration
Related Websites

3. I was injured as a result of an accident that happened in a railway platform. Do I (as a passenger) have any grounds to claim against the railway company?

BackPrintEmail this page to a freind Next

It depends on the circumstances of your case and whether or not the company has provided proper safety measures. The case of Lau Chi Man v Kowloon Canton Railway Corporation may help explain these issues.

The plaintiff in the above case sustained personal injuries in an accident that happened in 2002 at the platform of Lo Wu Station of the defendant (the KCRC). The issue here was whether or not the defendant was in breach of the common duty of care (see below for the explanation). The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish that the defendant failed to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case as is unreasonable to see that plaintiff is reasonably safe in using the platform as a passenger.

In addition, the Court also had to decide whether or not the defendant had breached the duty under Occupiers Liability Ordinance.

Section 3(2) of the Occupiers Liability Ordinance defined the "common duty of care" as "a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there". (Note: The KCRC is the "occupier" in the above case.)

Section 3(4) of the Occupiers Liability Ordinance provides: "In determining whether the occupier of premises has discharged the common duty of care to a visitor, regard is to be had to all the circumstances, so that (for example) – where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger of which he had been warned by the occupier, the warning is not to be treated without more as absolving the occupier from liability, unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe". In other words, the occupier may not be able to escape from the liability if the relevant warning sign/warning notice/verbal warning announcement was not clear and adequate with regard to the whole situation.