to be held liable to sb 搞唔清 好亂

第一個 to 是不該有的。
The owner shall not be held liable to the tenant in respect of loss and damage.
改了後仍是一句意思含糊的句子。

1. 向某人負責是 responsible to somebody, accountable to somebody，不會用 liable to somebdy。

2. 為某事負上法律責任是 liable for something。
The court ruled that John could not be held liable for his wife's debts.

3. liable to something 意思是某事是可能後果。
Offenders are liable to a fine of $2000.

如果原意是業主不需為租客所做的損壞負責，句子如下：
The owner shall not be held liable for any damage and loss caused by the tenant.

如果原意是業主不需為租客的損失負責，句子如下：
The owner shall not be held liable for tenant's damage and loss (of property).

最有可能的原意是「業主不需為物業內的損壞向租客負責」，即租期內業主不負責維修物業的損壞：
The owner shall not be held liable for any damage and loss that may occur during the tenancy period.

2013-11-22 12:02:10 補充：
I am no legal expert. The sentences are written with grammatical correctness in mind and not from a legal perspective.

2013-11-22 12:10:45 補充：
發問者問為何不是 to be held liable BY somebody
to be held liable 係被動式但通常不註明 by 邊個，因為通常係 by court 或 by 告人果個。

2013-11-22 12:25:14 補充：
最後講多少少關於 liable to，我認識中是沒有 liable to 的，以下的句子都不正確：
You are liable to your divorced wife for her living expense.
You are liable to your divorced wife in respect of her living expense.

應該寫成：
You are liable for your divorced wife's living expense.

2013-11-22 18:41:09 補充：
ex-wife is the proper word for the wife one divorced.

2013-11-23 01:41:08 補充：
Godfrey, thank you for your comment.

2013-11-23 10:15:34 補充：
Thanks to the clarification by Godfrey in the comment section.
'liable to someone' is a correct usage and the interpretation is 'owe someone a liability'.

The meaning of the sentence
'The owner shall not be held liable to the tenant in respect of the loss and damage.'
is ambiguous.

2013-11-23 10:26:39 補充：
Is the owner not liable for the tenant's loss and damage of his property, in the case of a break-in or a fire, for example?

Is the owner not liable for the loss and damage caused by the tenant?

Is the owner not liable for the damage of the rented premise?

2013-11-23 10:39:14 補充：
回應發問者：

be held to liable to tenant 第一個 to 一定係多餘，tenant 前要有冠詞。

「原處應該不會錯」Nay! 原句一定錯硬。

Godfrey, thank you for your comment. lol

Garlic, it looks like you need MORE and MORE dictionaries!

You poor thing!

2014-04-25 21:12:00 補充：
博士級 1 級???????????

最後講多少少關於 liable to，我認識中是沒有 liable to 的，以下的句子都不正確：
You are liable to your divorced wife for her living expense.
You are liable to your divorced wife in respect of her living expense.??????

What a joker!

2014-04-25 21:13:01 補充：
I have to thank you for making me laugh so hard tho, garlic. lol

held to liable-wrong

I think the sentence is wrong. ( to liable to ??)
liable to someone 比較少用

The owner shall not be held liable to tenant for loss and damage

Much better~
The owner shall not be held liable for tenant's loss and damage

2013-11-23 00:57:04 補充：
liable to someone 字典是有, 但不普遍, 避免使用

A carrier that is not liable to anyone for damage to luggage....
~ from the User's Webster Dictionary

When a defective product causes injury, the manufacturer may be liable to the person injured.
~ from the Collins Cobuild Dictionary

2013-11-23 02:19:01 補充：
Business 字典上有 liable to someone
解釋~ likely to be legally punished or forced to do something by law

The firm admitted no wrongdoing and therefore they were not liable to anyone for the losses that had occurred.

字典多處是有 held liable to, 但無 held to liable to,
相信你的句子是錯, 包括出自報紙, 政府通告,法律文件

The owner shall not be held to liable to tenant in respect of the loss and damage.
該業主不應對租客負有任何損失或損害的責任。


liable to somebody 是有這樣的用法啊，雖然比起 something 是少了點啦。

He is held liable to somebody 就是「他對某人負有責任」；但 He is held liable by somebody 就是「某人令他負起責任」，而這「某人」不一定是「他要負有責任」的人。

業主對租客的損失或損壞概不負責。