第七单元：过失法2 — 过失性陈述
Explore negligent misstatement, special relationships, the Barwick Test, breach of duty, remedies, defences, and vicarious liability.
探索过失性陈述、特殊关系、巴威克测试、违反义务、救济措施、辩护理由和替代责任。
概述
This unit examines negligent misstatementNegligent Misstatement 过失性陈述 — The giving of careless advice that leads to economic loss. 因疏忽提供不当建议而导致经济损失。 — an important extension of the tort of negligence dealing with careless words and advice rather than physical acts or omissions.
本单元研究过失性陈述——过失侵权法的重要延伸，涉及疏忽的言语和建议，而非身体行为或不作为。本单元涵盖的关键主题
Negligent words and advice — careless statements that cause economic loss.
过失性陈述：疏忽的言语和建议——导致经济损失的不当陈述。"Special relationship" — the foundation for liability in negligent misstatement.
注意义务："特殊关系"——过失性陈述责任的基础。Standard of care for professionals under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).
违反义务：《2002年民事责任法》（新州）第5O条下的专业人士注意标准。Revision — did the breach cause the damage? Was the damage too remote?
因果关系与间接性：违反义务是否导致了损害？损害是否过于间接？Damages — monetary compensation to restore the plaintiff's position.
侵权法救济：损害赔偿——恢复原告地位的金钱补偿。Contributory negligence, voluntary assumption of risk, disclaimer, and vicarious liability.
辩护理由与替代责任：共同过失、自愿承担风险、免责声明和替代责任。关键立法和案例
立法
重要案例
过失性陈述简介
📌 Definition 定义: Negligent misstatement is the giving of careless advice that leads to economic loss.
过失性陈述是指因疏忽提供不当建议而导致经济损失。历史背景
Earlier law did not award damages for negligent advice where the damage resulted from words, not physical action or omission. The law changed with the landmark case of Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465.
早期法律不对因言语（而非身体行为或不作为）造成损害的疏忽建议判决损害赔偿。法律随着具有里程碑意义的赫德利·伯恩诉赫勒案[1964] AC 465而发生了改变。The duty of advisers now covers both careless statements and the failure to disclose information that should have been disclosed.
顾问的义务现在涵盖了不当陈述和未披露应当披露的信息两种情况。⚠️ Key Change 关键变化: Before Hedley Byrne, only physical damage from negligent acts was compensable. After Hedley Byrne, economic loss from negligent words became actionable.
在赫德利·伯恩案之前，只有因疏忽行为造成的人身损害才可获得赔偿。在该案之后，因疏忽言语造成的经济损失也可以提起诉讼。赫德利·伯恩诉赫勒案 [1964] AC 465
Hedley Byrne (an advertising agent) was about to place orders for its client, Easipower Ltd. Before placing the orders, Hedley Byrne asked its bank to contact the client's bank (Heller & Partners) for a credit check.
赫德利·伯恩（一家广告代理商）准备为其客户Easipower有限公司下订单。在下订单之前，赫德利·伯恩让其银行联系客户的银行（赫勒合伙公司）进行信用审查。Heller & Partners replied with "For your private use and without responsibility on the part of this bank or its officials..." and gave a positive reference.
赫勒合伙公司回复说"仅供您私人使用，本银行及其官员不承担任何责任……"并给出了正面的信用评价。Hedley Byrne relied on this and placed large orders. Easipower went into liquidation, causing Hedley Byrne significant financial loss.
赫德利·伯恩依赖了这一评价并下了大量订单。Easipower随后进入清算程序，给赫德利·伯恩造成了重大经济损失。Hedley Byrne sued Heller & Partners for negligent misstatement — was Heller liable for the careless credit reference?
赫德利·伯恩以过失性陈述起诉赫勒合伙公司——赫勒是否应为疏忽的信用评价承担责任？Heller & Partners had assumed responsibility. A special relationship existed between the parties. However, the bank was not liable because of the exclusion clause — "without responsibility".
赫勒合伙公司已承担了责任。双方之间存在特殊关系。然而，由于免责条款——"不承担责任"，银行不需要承担赔偿责任。Established the tort of negligent misstatement. The concept of "special relationship" is an application of the 'who is my neighbour?' principle from Donoghue v Stevenson.
确立了过失性陈述侵权行为。"特殊关系"的概念是多诺霍诉斯蒂文森案中"谁是我的邻居？"原则的应用。巴威克测试 — 特殊关系
Mutual Life & Citizens' Assurance v Evatt [1968] HCA 74
A policyholder asked MLC for advice on HG Palmer investment performance. The MLC officer advised it was safe to invest more. The policyholder invested further. HG Palmer went into liquidation.
一位保单持有人向MLC询问关于HG Palmer投资表现的建议。MLC的官员建议继续投资是安全的。保单持有人追加了投资。HG Palmer随后进入清算程序。Whether MLC was negligent in providing investment advice?
MLC在提供投资建议时是否存在过失？MLC was not negligent — no duty of care existed. MLC's business did not include giving investment advice.
MLC没有过失——不存在注意义务。MLC的业务不包括提供投资建议。巴威克测试 — 四个步骤
🔑 Reasonable Reliance Factors 合理信赖考量因素:
沙多克诉帕拉马塔市议会 (1981) 150 CLR 225
A property development company asked the Council about road widening proposals. The Council said there were no proposals. Shaddock purchased the property. Later discovered that a road widening proposal existed.
一家房地产开发公司向市议会询问道路拓宽提案。议会表示没有提案。沙多克购买了该房产。后来发现道路拓宽提案确实存在。Whether the Council owed a duty of care? Whether the incorrect information constituted negligent misstatement?
议会是否负有注意义务？不正确的信息是否构成过失性陈述？The Council owed a duty of care. Public authorities could be held liable for negligent misstatements. Skills were not required — even a non-expert adviser could owe a duty of care.
议会负有注意义务。公共机构可以为过失性陈述承担责任。不需要具备专业技能——即使是非专家的建议人也可能负有注意义务。Broadened the scope of duty of care. A special relationship can exist even when the adviser does not profess skill and the advisee did not pay for the advice.
扩大了注意义务的范围。即使建议人没有声称具备专业技能，且被建议人没有为建议付费，特殊关系也可以存在。违反义务 — 第5B条和第5O条
第5B条 — 一般标准
📌 Section 5B 第5B条: A person is not negligent in failing to take precautions against a risk of harm unless:
一个人在未采取预防措施时不构成过失，除非：第5O条 — 专业人士的注意标准
📌 Section 5O 第5O条: A professional is not liable in negligence if they acted in a manner that was widely accepted by peer professional opinion as competent professional practice.
如果专业人士以同行专业意见广泛认可的方式行事，则不承担过失责任。⚠️ Exception 例外: The court is not bound by peer professional opinion if the court considers the opinion to be irrational.
例外：如果法院认为同行专业意见是不合理的，法院不受该意见的约束。侵权法救济 — 损害赔偿
📌 Purpose 目的: The purpose of damages is compensation — to put the plaintiff in the position they would have been in if the tort had not been committed.
损害赔偿的目的是补偿——使原告恢复到如果侵权行为未发生时应处的位置。赔偿类型
辩护理由
The plaintiff contributed to their own injury. Compensation is reduced proportionally to the plaintiff's contribution. Can reduce damages by up to 100%.
原告对自身受到的伤害有过错。赔偿按原告的过错比例相应减少。最多可减少100%的赔偿。The plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily accepted the risk of injury. If established, this is a complete defence — the plaintiff receives no compensation at all.
原告明知并自愿接受了受伤的风险。如果成立，这是一项完全辩护——原告完全无法获得赔偿。A disclaimer or exclusion clause may limit or exclude liability. Courts interpret disclaimers strictly — they must be clear and unambiguous. As seen in Hedley Byrne, the "without responsibility" clause successfully excluded liability.
免责声明或排除条款可能限制或排除责任。法院对免责声明进行严格解释——它们必须清晰明确。如赫德利·伯恩案所示，"不承担责任"条款成功排除了责任。替代责任
📌 Definition 定义: One person is responsible for the wrongful act of another due to a legal relationship between them (typically employer–employee).
一个人因与另一个人之间的法律关系（通常是雇主-雇员关系）而对另一个人的不法行为承担责任。| Factor 因素 | Employee 雇员 | Independent Contractor 独立承包商 |
|---|---|---|
| Control 控制 | Employer controls how work is done 雇主控制工作方式 |
Controls own methods of work 自行控制工作方法 |
| Vicarious Liability 替代责任 | Employer IS vicariously liable 雇主需承担替代责任 |
Employer generally NOT liable 雇主一般不承担替代责任 |
| Scope 范围 | Liable only within scope of employment 仅在工作范围内承担责任 |
Responsible for own actions 对自身行为负责 |
辅导练习题
Test your understanding by working through these tutorial questions. Click "Show Answer" to reveal the suggested response.
通过这些辅导练习题测试你的理解。点击"显示答案"查看建议回答。Negligent misstatement is the giving of careless advice that leads to economic loss. It was established by Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465. The case recognised that a duty of care could arise from a "special relationship" where one party relied on the advice of another.
过失性陈述是因疏忽提供不当建议而导致经济损失。它由赫德利·伯恩诉赫勒案[1964] AC 465确立。该案承认，当一方依赖另一方的建议时，"特殊关系"可以产生注意义务。The Barwick Test from Mutual Life v Evatt has 4 steps: (1) Assumption of Responsibility — did the adviser assume responsibility? (2) Serious/Business Nature — was it a business context? (3) Awareness of Intent to Act — did the adviser know the advisee would act on it? (4) Reasonable Reliance — was reliance reasonable considering the parties' capacity, subject matter, and occasion?
巴威克测试来自MLC诉Evatt案，有4个步骤：(1) 承担责任——建议人是否承担了责任？(2) 严肃/商业性质——是否在商业环境中？(3) 知晓行动意图——建议人是否知道被建议人会据此行事？(4) 合理信赖——考虑到双方能力、事项性质和场合，信赖是否合理？Shaddock v Parramatta City Council broadened the duty of care by establishing that public authorities could be liable for negligent misstatements. It also confirmed that a special relationship could exist even when the adviser did not profess to have special skills and the advisee did not pay for the advice.
沙多克诉帕拉马塔市议会案通过确立公共机构可以为过失性陈述承担责任而扩大了注意义务的范围。该案还确认，即使建议人没有声称具备专业技能且被建议人没有为建议付费，特殊关系也可以存在。Contributory negligence is a partial defence where the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to their injury. Damages are reduced proportionally (can be up to 100%). Voluntary assumption of risk is a complete defence where the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily accepted the risk. If proven, the plaintiff receives no compensation at all.
共同过失是一种部分辩护，原告自身的过失导致了其受伤。赔偿按比例减少（最多可减少100%）。自愿承担风险是一种完全辩护，原告明知并自愿接受了风险。如果得到证明，原告完全无法获得赔偿。Vicarious liability makes one person responsible for the wrongful act of another due to their legal relationship. Employers are vicariously liable for employees acting within the scope of employment. Employers are NOT liable when: (1) the employee acts outside the scope of employment, or (2) the person is an independent contractor, not an employee.
替代责任使一个人因法律关系对另一个人的不法行为承担责任。雇主对雇员在工作范围内的行为承担替代责任。雇主不承担责任的情况：(1) 雇员在工作范围之外行事，或 (2) 该人是独立承包商，而非雇员。关键术语
| Term 术语 | Definition 定义 |
|---|---|
| Negligent Misstatement 过失性陈述 |
The giving of careless advice that leads to economic loss. 因疏忽提供不当建议而导致经济损失。 |
| Special Relationship 特殊关系 |
A relationship where one party relies on the advice of another, creating a duty of care. 一方依赖另一方建议的关系，产生注意义务。 |
| Barwick Test 巴威克测试 |
4-step test to determine if a special relationship exists for negligent misstatement. 判断过失性陈述中是否存在特殊关系的四步测试。 |
| Section 5O 第5O条 |
Standard of care for professionals — not liable if acted in manner widely accepted by peer opinion. 专业人士的注意标准——如果以同行意见广泛认可的方式行事则不承担责任。 |
| Vicarious Liability 替代责任 |
One person responsible for wrongful act of another due to legal relationship (employer-employee). 因法律关系（雇主-雇员）对另一个人的不法行为承担责任。 |
| Contributory Negligence 共同过失 |
Partial defence — plaintiff contributed to own injury, damages reduced proportionally. 部分辩护——原告对自身受伤有过错，赔偿按比例减少。 |
| Voluntary Assumption of Risk 自愿承担风险 |
Complete defence — plaintiff knowingly accepted the risk of injury. 完全辩护——原告明知并接受了受伤的风险。 |
闪卡复习
Click each card to reveal the definition. Master these key terms!
点击每张卡片查看定义。掌握这些关键术语！知识检测
Test your understanding of Negligence 2 — Misstatement. Select the correct answer for each question.
测试你对过失法2——过失性陈述的理解。为每个问题选择正确答案。