樹壓死人, 政府係唔係要賠錢?

This question relates to "Negligence", which connotes the complex concept of duty, breach and damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty was owing.

A plaintiff who alleges negligence must prove:

(a) that the defendant (the said Gov't Dept) owed the plaintiff (the said victim) a legal duty of care;
(b) that the defendant broke his legal duty of care;
(c) that the plaintiff (the said victim) suffered damage in consequence of the breach. The damage must not be too remote.

If that fallen tree had periodically checked and recently been under critical examination by professional bodies with care and was certified "acceptable and safe" to the public, I think that Gov't Department should be free from any fault for the rooting system (and decays) laid under the ground could not have been seen, (this incident is merely regarded as an act of GOD) but if that checking was done perfunctorily and not up to the specified stardard and that , the said Gov't department has forseen that the tree in question is not safe and may hurt the passers-by and devoid of taking any preventive measures or remedial action, the fallen tree that subsequently took the life of the victim, that Gov't Department, as in this case, should give reparation to the sufferer.

賠錢? 錢可以作為人命的補償嗎? 前董伯伯及現今曾特首常常把『問責』兩字掛在口邊, 但試問他們真的有追問、真的有責罰嗎? 康文處由紅蟲事件、 麻鷹投鼠及售賣奧運獎牌運動員表演門票等事件中, 處處表現了極官僚的作風─不做不錯、多做多錯及死不認錯。
五天前才檢測過的百年老樹, 評定為『Acceptable』的, 竟可以在無風無雨中倒下壓死少女及傷及二人, 究竟是康文處的人員疏忽職守, 根本沒把檢測工作做好吖? 還是檢測的方法存在問題及漏洞? 但孤無論上述是那項出問題, 康文處是責無旁貸, 未有把存在危險的事項加以重視, 一點危機意識全無, 而全港有百多棵這樣的老樹, 再加上其他存在危險性的樹木, 就交由這樣的一個不負責任的部門來管理, 那我們香港市民便人人自危了, 自保的方法是只有遠離樹木了, 唏!

今日睇新聞話康文署好似會賠..