Page 392 of 606
174 01 606
Page 392 of 606
380
# PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
lighting facilities remain inadequate and fire services installation and equipment lacking regular maintenance, unauthorized alteration or addition of unauthorized structure to become substandard to the requirements of Fire Services Ordinance—e.g. the addition of metal gates in the public corridor, removal of smoke doors and construction of wooden huts on the rooftop. All these are in contravention of the Fire Services Ordinance, and will constitute a hazard to the property. In the end, it will cause loss in life or property when there is a fire or an emergency. As such, owners/OCs as the occupiers should bear liabilities for their negligence. The incident of Sun Hing Building on Nathan Road, of which we have learnt recently, is a case in point. In 1991, a worker fell down some 50-foot height from the building with a scaffolding. He was seriously injured and paralysed. In a lawsuit against the OC, the victim was awarded damages of over $25 millions by the High Court in last October. In summing up the case, the judge said, "On the day of the accident, the victim was doing renovation work for a flat on the 10th floor of the building, when a plumbing and electrical worker surnamed Lai who was engaged by the OC of Sun Hing Building approached him and requested him to help investigate the problem of leaking water pipes. When the victim stepped onto the scaffolding for an inspection as invited, it suddenly collapsed and he fell with it, causing him severe injuries and paralysis."
Although the OC of Sun Hing Building allowed the decoration company to erect a scaffolding at the external wall of the building for repair purpose, the scaffolding was not dismantled properly after the renovation work but was left in a dilapidated condition. The judge, therefore, pointed out that—as long as the scaffolding was still erected at the external wall of the building, the OC had the duty to ensure it was in a safe and reliable condition, and as the risk, collapse and injury on a dilapidated scaffolding were foreseeable, the OC should be held responsible for the claims under the "Occupiers Liability Ordinance". The rationale is simple and clear.
The judge further pointed out in his decision that even though the victim had no contractual relationship with the OC, the latter was still liable to the Common Duty of Care. Since the OC as the occupier allowed the scaffolding at the external wall to dilapidate and exist in a high risk condition, it had violated the provision of the Common Duty of Care under the "Occupiers Liability Ordinance". As a result, the owners of Sun Hing Building had to make reasonable compensation to the victim.
The Sun Hing case proves that there is the risk of owners/OCs being held responsible for monetary claims as a result of negligence. It also indicates that for the safety of residents and visitors, and the prevention of monetary liability that may be suffered by owners as a result of negligence by owners/OCs, OCs and all owners should, as far as possible, manage their buildings in accordance with the legislation enacted by the Government. No OC should be negligent of its management duty, making it an inactive body in name only. Otherwise, the OC may be prosecuted for negligence of its duty.