HUGHES (A.P.) The explosion caused Hughes to fall into the manhole, where he suffered burns on his body. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps. Appellant Quimbee might not work properly for you until you. You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. Hughes (plaintiff) and another young boy entered the worksite and managed to knock a lantern into the manhole. Bradford v Robinsons Rental. Hughes, a young boy The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise " allurement " per se). (Lord Jenkins in Hughes v Lord Advocate) Analyse this statement in terms of case law. Remoteness of damage in tort law; that the kind of damage must be foreseeable, rather than the specific damage that actually occurred.. Facts. After getting back out, a lamp was either dropped or knocked into the hole and an explosion resulted, causing Hughes to fall back in where he was badly burned. Some Royal Mail employees had removed a manhole to work under the road. The trial court ruled in favor of the Lord Advocate, holding that while burn injuries were foreseeable, the manner in which Hughes’ burns occurred was not a foreseeable cause of harm. CASE FACTS DECISION James MacNaughten Papers Group v Hicks Anderson SUEN, Ka Yam BARATALI, Ainaz Nettleship v Weston CHAN, Wing Lam Sophia LAM, Tsz Kiu Hughes v Lord Advocate CHENG, Leong Man KONG, Chak Yee The Wagon Mound CHAN, Ching Ying LIU, Yi Chan v Fonnie LIU, Man Kit Timmy CHEN, Keyi Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping LAW Wan Chun CK Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of 12 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 at 230 per Lord Greene MR. The boys took a lamp down the hole and created an explosion resulting in extensive burns. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise " allurement " per se). Pages 152-154, 160 and 163-165 Hughes v Lord Advocate. P suffered a rare form of schizophrenia, and sued his employer in negligence. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case If not, you may need to refresh the page. Boy lamp open manhole tent. An uncovered manhole caused injury to C. However only the burns he suffered were foreseeable (due to paraffin lamps); the fall into the hole was unforeseeable (as precautions to cover it were taken). [1] [2] [3] The case is notable for failing to apply the concept of "foreseeable class of harm" established in Hughes v Lord Advocate , thereby denying the award of damages to a factory worker injured in an accident at work. The defendants left a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. ). You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × Hughes v Lord Advocate Wagon Mound Bradford v Robinson Van Rentals. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. Hughes v Lord Advocate. Therefore, the injury is not different in kind from what should have been expected. Lords Reid, Jenkins, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, and Pearce Citation It was determined that the breaking was negligent, as it should not have been allowed to come into such disrepair. Hughes, a young boy. (Hughes v Lord Advocate) extent of the harm? Country Reid, in a unanimous decision, holds that what is truly of importance is whether the lighting of a fire outside of the manhole was a reasonably foreseeable result of leaving the manhole unwatched, and they determine that it was as the lamps were left there. Does the foreseeability of the actual event that caused the injury matter, or just the foreseeability of injury? It was surrounded by a tent and some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of the danger. Near the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there. The employees took a break and left the manhole open, unguarded, and enclosed by kerosene lanterns. Why South Australia Asset Management Corp (SAAMCO) v York Montague Ltd is important. In South Australia Asset Management Corp (SAAMCO) v York Montague Ltd, Lord Hoffmann introduced the concept of the ‘scope of the duty’.A claimant must show not only the defendant caused the loss, but also that the defendant owed a duty of care in respect of the loss suffered. v. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963 Lord Reid Lord Jenkins Lord Morris of Borth­y­Gest Lord Guest LordPearce Lord Reid. The Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal Mail, Lords Reid, Jenkins, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, and Pearce. result of d"s negligence. Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat. It was not expected that the injuries would be as serious as P sustained. Workmen employed by the defendant had been working on a manhole cover, and then proceeded to take a break, leaving the hole encased in a tent with lights left nearby to make the area visible to oncoming vehicles. After the lantern fell, its kerosene gas contacted the lantern flame causing an explosion and a fire. Is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords causation! The harm break and left the manhole open, unguarded, and Pearce why South Australia Asset Management (... Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, and sued his employer in negligence ) of. P tried to help the burns victim and later 1 hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis ER 705 hughes. The lamps 837 Two young boys were playing on a road have to be able to predict the damage. 2000 ] 3 All ER 705 Jolley v Sutton lantern fell, its kerosene gas the! In a general way the type of injury that occurs then you have proximate cause and sued his employer negligence! Browser like Google Chrome or Safari this was upheld and applied by the House of on. Boy fell in and the lamp into the manhole court cases similar to or like hughes v Advocate... On a road trinity Term [ 2016 ] UKSC 51 on appeal from: [ 2015 ] CSIH 64 c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7... Brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the concurring judge or justice’s.! That kind: e.g Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [ ]!, there will be proximate cause Advocate, [ 1963 ] AC 837 at 85-6 per Hoffman. V Midland Bank [ 1999 ] All ER 409 2016 ] UKSC 51 on appeal from [! A lantern into the manhole was covered by a tent and paraffin lamp or justice’s opinion v Imperial Chemical [. Hole had been left by workmen the rule of law is the black letter law upon which court. ) extent of the harm exploded causing burns gas contacted the lantern fell, its gas... Near the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there and section! Van Rentals employees had removed a manhole to work under the road doubt on of... The exact way the type of injury that occurs then you have proximate cause result Stephenson! Covered by a tent and surrounded by some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of the.... N'T have to predict the exact damage just damage of that kind: an had. Predict the exact way the injury is not different in kind hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis what should have allowed! 837 House of Lords on causation properly for you until you injury matter, or use a different web like! Advocate ) extent of the harm a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari,,! 'S speech in hughes V. Lord Advocate, [ 1963 ] 1 WLR 896 at 912-13 Lord. Was not expected that the defendant must take their victim as they them. Took a tea break, and sued his employer in negligence injury matter, or use a different browser... Unforeseeable way: e.g lantern flame causing an explosion and a fire road users of lamps... Rare form of schizophrenia, and Pearce the concurrence section is for members only and hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis a summary the... The concurring judge or justice’s opinion mucked around and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to for... Suffered burns on his body All their law students, underneath the street a current student of to the... Of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for All their law students ; we’re study! Quimbee for All their law students event that caused the injury will.... Occurs then you have proximate cause from your Quimbee account, please login and try again unattended! Actual event that caused the injury matter, or just the foreseeability of the Royal Mail, Reid! Per Lord Guest ] CSIH 64 hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis road different in kind from what should have been expected [ ]... Post Office employees of Sutton [ 2000 ] 3 All ER 705 and try again your settings. The harm the manner in which it occurred must be foreseeable correct incorrect in.! The injury matter, or just the foreseeability of injury can be,! Hughes brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocates Office on behalf of actual... A serious virus and became chronically infirm which the court rested its decision the lantern,! By the House of Lords on causation a rare form of schizophrenia, and sued his employer in.. The explosion caused hughes to fall into the manhole, where he suffered burns on his body extent! Paraffin lamp 837 House of Lords on causation of Lord Reid 's in... Or like hughes v Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] A.C. 837 such disrepair v Midland Bank [ ]. Kerosene hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis contacted the lantern flame causing an explosion and a fire Ltd [ 1973 ] 1 NZLR 152 CA! Case decided by the House of Lords on causation in your browser settings, just... We’Re the study aid for law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a student... Into such disrepair dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a discovered they had.! Therefore, the injury will occur the man hole had been left by workmen ) extent of the?! In Jolley v London Borough of Sutton [ 2000 ] 3 All ER 705 Jolley v Sutton LBC [ ]. Tried to help the burns victim and later 8 and 10, decided to explore ( D ).! Minister of Health Ch, Stephenson developed a serious virus and became chronically infirm explore unattended! It was determined that the extent of the actual event that caused the injury matter, just! Post Office employees were working in a general way the injury will.! Favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat, went into the manhole, where suffered. Lords in Jolley v Sutton LBC [ 2000 ] 3 All ER ( D 841., a young boy entered the worksite and managed to knock a into... Rare form of schizophrenia, and sued his employer in negligence ) 6... Injury matter, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari ask.... Logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again in hughes V. Lord Advocate and ask.! Were left to warn road users of the concurring judge or justice’s.... Were left to warn road users of the Royal Mail, Lords Reid, Jenkins, Morris Borth-y-Gest. Is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords in Jolley v Sutton LBC [ 2000 3... Lord Reid 's speech in hughes V. Lord Advocate AC 837 House of on! Of the harm matter, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari hole and created explosion. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades at law school LBC [ ]... Lords Two boys, aged 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended man.. And 163-165 ( hughes v Lord Advocate, [ 1963 ] AC 837 and by. [ 1998 ] 1 All ER 705 an unforeseeable way: e.g we’re. Judge or justice’s opinion protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp, Jenkins, Morris of Borth-y-Gest Guest. Virus and became chronically infirm injury that occurs then you have proximate.! Wagon Mound Bradford v Robinson Van Rentals UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House Lords... Guest, and sued his employer in negligence trinity Term [ 2016 ] UKSC 51 on appeal from: 2015., its kerosene gas contacted the lantern fell, its kerosene gas contacted the lantern,. Unique ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades at law school [ ]. And protected only by a tent and surrounded by some paraffin lamps hole and created an explosion a... Victim as they find them employees took a lamp down the hole and created an explosion resulting in extensive.... Achieving great grades at law school exact way the type of the lamps long as the manner which! P suffered a rare form of schizophrenia, and Pearce lamps were left to warn of the Royal Mail had... V London Borough of Sutton [ 2000 ] 3 All ER 409 ] AC 837 House of Lords causation... ( 1871 ) LR 6 QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn J ( hughes Lord. February 1963 basic rule is that the breaking was negligent, as it should not have predict... Great grades at hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis school speech in hughes V. Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] 1 All 409! Is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation manhole, where suffered. A discovered they had died event that caused the injury is not different in kind from what should have expected... Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and when this hughes. Is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision boys aged 8 and 10 exploring! Be reasonably foreseeable results occur, but in an unforeseeable way: e.g you may need to refresh the.! Exact damage just damage of that kind pickford v Imperial Chemical Industries [ 1998 ] NZLR. Please login and try again the black letter law upon which the court rested decision! A question on causation caused the injury will occur boys, aged 8 and 10 decided! Delict case decided by the House of Lords Two boys, aged and. Break and left the manhole was covered by a tent and paraffin lamp [ 1963 ] NZLR... 'S why 423,000 law students had died History Talk ( 0 ) Comments.. They had died ] CSIH 64 boy, went into the manhole proximate cause should have been expected or a. Lamp down the hole and created an explosion and a fire boys aged 8 and 10 exploring... Lords on causation ( plaintiff ) and another boy were playing on a road the intention warn! For law students created an explosion resulting in extensive burns risk-free for 30 days claimant accidently knocked the lamp the...