患者在醫院跌倒之過失相抵【寰宇醫事裁判】 試閱
On the Comparative Negligence in Hence of Slipping of a Patient at a Hospital
原告X於被告Y所經營醫院，因積水滑倒而致骨折。X認為Y有硬體設置或維護上有瑕疵，因此向Y請求醫療費、交通費、休業損失與慰問金等損害賠償。Y則認為X滑倒的地方，是僅限員工通行之通道；且該通道為室外空間，其積水乃事前降雨所致，而非員工疏失。因此X既專著防滑力較差的拖鞋，並行走在員工限用之通道，自應留意腳下，是以Y主張過失相抵；此外，Y主張事後與X簽訂有償醫療契約，提供治療X骨折之服務，並保留醫療費之請求權。法院認為縱其通道乃員工專用，但Y既未標示清楚，也曾有員工引導X行走該通道，且通道結構與地面容易濕滑，故Y有維護瑕疵；惟X知悉通道為室外空間，穿著拖鞋在此行走必須更小心，因此就滑倒之損害發生有過失。另X與Y並未簽訂有償之醫療契約，則X提供之診療頂多是補償，而不能另外請求該診療之費用。
Plaintiff X suffered a fracture when he slipped and fell due to a pool of water at a hospital run by accused Y. X believed that Y had a defective hardware installation or maintenance, and therefore sought damages from Y for medical expenses, transportation costs, loss of employment and the mental compensation. Y argued that the place where X slipped and fell was a passage for employee only, and that the passage was an outdoor space and the water was caused by rainfall beforehand, not by employee’s negligence. Therefore, X was wearing slippers with poor slip resistance and was walking in a passageway restricted to employees, so he should have paid attention to his feet. In addition, Y claimed that there was a medical contract between himself and X afterward, giving X the medical treatment for his bone fracture and having the claim right for the medical costs. The court held that even though the passage was for the exclusive use of the employees, Y didn’t mark it clearly, and there were employees who guided X through there, and the structure of the passage and the floor were slippery easily. On the other hand, X, who knew that the passage was an outdoor space, should be more careful when walking there with slippers. Therefore he born the comparative negligence in respect of felling and the bone fracture. What’s more, due to Y didn’t make any onerous medical contract with X, there was for Y no claim right for the medical costs but only a countervail.
074-081
