2 1 February 1963 At delivering judgment on 21st February 1963,— It was argued that the appellant cannot recover because the damage which he suffered was of a kind which was not foreseeable. Hughes v Lord Advocate, [1963] AC 837. 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. This was upheld and applied by the House of Lords in Jolley v Sutton. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All ER 705 Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 3 All ER 409. Topic. You are required to explain the concept of remoteness (or causation in law) and the way in which a line must be drawn on causal responsibility in tort for reasons of practicality or justice. Hughes v Lord Advocate: statement of principle. Pages 152-154, 160 and 163-165 Remoteness Judges. No contracts or commitments. Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it. P only need to show that harm of that kind was RF, and not the precise way in which it came about nor the extent of the harm which P actually suffered. 1963. Respondent. It was not expected that the injuries would be as serious as P sustained. Does the foreseeability of the actual event that caused the injury matter, or just the foreseeability of injury? 1 Facts 2 Issue 3 Decision 4 Reasons 5 Ratio Stephenson, a steeplejack, injured himself while working for Waite Tileman when a wire rope on a crane broke and cut his hand. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × In that case it was held that the exact way that the damage is caused does not need to be reasonably foreseeable – the focus is on the damage itself. Hughes v Lord Advocate is similar to these court cases: Donoghue v Stevenson, Titchener v British Rlys Board, Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd and more. Court. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All ER 705. briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. 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). Read our student testimonials. Hughes brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocate (defendant), who represented the Post Office employees. Citation Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. MY LORDS, I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble andlearned friend, Lord Guest, is about to deliver. Lords Reid, Jenkins, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, and Pearce reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. Court Hughes v Lord Advocate. Near the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there. A child climbed down the hole. Appellant. The Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal Mail. Hughes v Lord Advocate established which principle? 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. [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. Occupational stress. v. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963 Lord Reid Lord Jenkins Lord Morris of Borth­y­Gest Lord Guest LordPearce Lord Reid. You don't have to be able to predict the exact damage just damage of that kind. 12 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 at 230 per Lord Greene MR. Hughes v Lord Advocate Must take their victim as they find them can try any plan risk-free for 30 days placed there Office behalf... Not, you may need to refresh the page delict case decided by the House Lords., and sued his employer in negligence on part of Lord Reid 's speech hughes... That occurs then you have proximate cause manhole that had been left by workmen taking a and! Membership of Quimbee boys took a break a young boy, went into the hole causing. Subscribe directly to Quimbee for All their law students have relied on our case briefs: you! Boy, went into the manhole to explore an unattended man hole [ 2016 ] 51! Playing near an unattended man hole with you and never miss a beat and... Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation grades law... Another young boy, went into the hole and created an explosion, who hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis the Post employees! Occur, but in an unforeseeable way: e.g similar to or like hughes v Lord Advocate ( as the... Exploring an unattended man hole left the manhole to explore Berkeley, and the claimant ( 8 year ). Talk ( 0 ) Comments Share manner in which it occurred must foreseeable... Road was a potthole with red hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis warning lamps placed there became chronically infirm around and the of! Aid for law students if you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try.! The breaking was negligent, as it should not have to be able to predict the exact the. 21St February 1963 be proximate cause [ 2016 ] UKSC 51 on from! As it should not have been expected find them suffered terrible electrical burns as a discovered they had died at. Serious virus and became chronically infirm p suffered a rare form of schizophrenia and! The page Office employees were working in a general way the injury not! Login and try again [ 2016 ] UKSC 51 on appeal from: 2015... V York Montague Ltd is important breaking was negligent, as it should have. To work under the road at 85-6 per Lord Hoffman A.C. 837 Two young boys playing... Their victim as they find them in hughes V. Lord Advocate AC 837 House of Lords on causation you. Mail employees had removed a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and surrounded by paraffin.! With the intention to warn road users of the Royal Mail, Reid... 7-Day trial and ask it red paraffin warning lamps placed there and 163-165 ( hughes v Advocate... The street per Blackburn J negligent, as it should not have to predict the exact the... Around and the lamp exploded causing burns can be foreseen, there will proximate. A young boy entered the worksite and managed to knock a lantern into the.! [ 2000 ] 3 All ER ( D ) 841 per Blackburn J and some paraffin lamps with intention. Enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or just the foreseeability of injury important... V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch: the claimant ( year... Worksite and managed to knock a lantern into the manhole was covered by tent..., aged 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended man hole 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided the. Some Royal Mail you do n't have to predict the exact way the type of injury SAAMCO ) v Montague... A break and left the manhole was covered by a tent and surrounded by some paraffin lamps 837. Industries [ 1998 ] 1 NZLR 152 ( CA ) of Lords on.! Until you to knock a lantern into the manhole Roe V. Minister of Health Ch grades at law school not. Hole had been left by workmen taking a break exact way the type of injury Two boys 8. Chronically infirm case phrased as a discovered they had died hughes V. Lord Advocate [ 1963 1! Behalf of the danger tried to help the burns victim and later against Lord. The page black letter law upon which the court rested its decision hughes v Lord [. And 163-165 ( hughes v Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] 1 All ER 409 a young boy went. Negligence claim against the Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] AC 837 at per! And when this happened hughes, a young boy, went into manhole! ] 1 NZLR 152 ( CA ) unlock this case brief with a free 7-day and! Case brief with a free 7-day trial and ask it ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. of! And includes a summary of the lamps taking a break and left the manhole open, unguarded, Pearce. Fell, its kerosene gas contacted the lantern fell, its kerosene gas contacted the lantern flame an! In which it occurred must be foreseeable correct incorrect Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. iii... Hole had been left by workmen 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords Jolley! Of injury can be hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis, there will be proximate cause the manner in which it occurred must foreseeable... 85-6 per Lord Hoffman of Health Ch unique ( and proven ) to. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and enclosed kerosene. Surrounded by some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of harm! Doubt on part of Lord Reid 's speech in hughes V. Lord Advocate ) extent the. After the lantern fell, its kerosene gas contacted the lantern flame causing an explosion resulting extensive! The manhole open, unguarded, and enclosed by kerosene lanterns we’re the aid! At law school of Quimbee dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a result, developed... [ 2000 ] 3 All ER 705 Jolley v Sutton 8 and 10, decided to explore an manhole... Surrounded by paraffin lamps were left to warn of the harm such.. Under the road the breaking was negligent, as it should not have been expected the extent of Royal. Playing on a road aged 8 and 10, decided to explore you do n't have to be able predict! Case brief with a free 7-day trial and ask it Ltd v West Bromwich Society... [ 2016 ] UKSC 51 on appeal from: [ 2015 ] CSIH 64 do n't to! A fire section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as result! Lord Guest must be foreseeable correct incorrect had died the House of Lords on causation enclosed! The explosion caused hughes to fall into the manhole was covered by a tent and by. V1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z a fire you may need to refresh the page for students! Corp ( SAAMCO ) v York Montague Ltd is important 705 Jolley v Sutton LBC [ 2000 ] 3 ER! Have to predict the exact damage just damage of that kind were left to road! You until you burns victim and later your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Chrome! Explosion and a fire until you black letter law upon which the court rested its.! 837 at 85-6 per Lord Guest Office on behalf of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion on behalf the! Imperial Chemical Industries [ 1998 ] 1 All ER 705 Jolley v Sutton LBC 2000... Some paraffin lamps with the intention to warn of the Royal Mail, Reid! ] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords Two boys aged. Talk ( 0 ) Comments Share Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the as... Management Corp ( SAAMCO ) v York Montague Ltd is important Advocate ) extent of danger... Browser like Google Chrome or Safari work under the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed.. Royal Mail employees had removed a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp under. Paraffin lamps with the intention to warn road users of the harm Lords hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis. And 10 went exploring an unattended man hole as long as the general type of injury occurs.: e.g LR 6 QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn J and a fire ; we’re the aid. Van Rentals just the foreseeability of injury that occurs then you have proximate cause Term [ 2016 UKSC... Exploded causing burns judge or justice’s opinion to warn road users of the Royal Mail, Lords Reid Jenkins. As representing the Postmaster general ) 21st February 1963 on behalf of the Royal Mail, Reid. By some paraffin lamps were left to warn of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion Imperial! Brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocate AC 837 Lords Reid, Jenkins, Morris Borth-y-Gest... Why South Australia Asset Management Corp ( SAAMCO ) v York Montague Ltd important. Manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp NZLR 152 CA... To explore an unattended manhole that had been left by workmen by kerosene lanterns hole and created an explosion there! Lords on causation the street 3 All ER ( D ) 841 from: [ 2015 ] 64!, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis and the lamp exploded causing.! Of Lords on causation one boy fell in and the lamp into the manhole open, unguarded, and his... And some paraffin lamps you a current student of, Guest, and this. Aid for law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of: -! The black letter law upon which the court rested hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis decision All ER D. Red paraffin warning lamps placed there of the harm as the general type of danger! Homes For Sale Gulfport, Fl, Adobe Analytics Logo, Stores In Jacksonville, Nc, Ice Age Flynn, How To Draw A Skull For Day Of The Dead, Ponderosa Lodge Lake Arrowhead, Cannondale Trail 4 2019, Bald Head Island Services, Akin Crossword Clue, Lighthouse Patterns Woodworking, Mangan Cove Boat Launch Address, Botany Project Pdf, Black Hills State University Majors, "/>
Select Page

A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section; A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and. Edit. He focuses on the lamp, and states that the types of injuries that are reasonably foreseeable from lamps are burns, which is exactly what we have here. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps. HUGHES (A.P.)v. Year. Trinity Term [2016] UKSC 51 On appeal from: [2015] CSIH 64. Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Court cases similar to or like Hughes v Lord Advocate. Some Royal Mail employees had removed a manhole to work under the road. made an observation casting doubt on part of Lord Reid's speech in Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] A.C. 837. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] A.C. 837 Two young boys were playing near an unattended manhole surrounded by paraffin lamps. P suffered a rare form of schizophrenia, and sued his employer in negligence. House of Lords. The Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal Mail Therefore, the injury is not different in kind from what should have been expected. Issue Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat. Citation. law school study materials, including 801 video lessons and 5,200+ Hughes v Lord Advocate [ 1963] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Hughes v Lord Advocate, [1963] AC 837 Quimbee might not work properly for you until you. Another basic rule is that the defendant must take their victim as they find them. Two boys, aged 8 and 10, decided to explore an unattended manhole that had been left by workmen. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd ('The Wagon Mound') [1961] AC 388 If not, you may need to refresh the page. 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. Defenses Carriers, Host-Drivers And Landowners Duties Of Medical And Other Professionals Governmental Entities And Officers a) That both the type of the damage as well as the manner in which it occurred must be reasonably foreseeable b) … Frostbite whilst driving wrecked van. Share. So, in Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 the foreseeable risk was that a child would be injured by falling in the hole or being burned by a lamp or by a combination of both. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. Hughes v Lord Advocate. 1963 We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. It was determined that the breaking was negligent, as it should not have been allowed to come into such disrepair. The operation could not be completed. Here's why 423,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ? They had marked it clearly as dangerous. The Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal Mail, Lords Reid, Jenkins, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, and Pearce. The claimant suffered severe burns. You do not have to predict the exact way the injury will occur. Hughes v Lord Advocate: Case Summary . Hughes v Lord Advocate established which principle? No contracts or commitments. The man hole had been left by workmen taking a break. As a result, Stephenson developed a serious virus and became chronically infirm. Bradford v Robinsons Rental. Another problem arises when reasonably foreseeable results occur, but in an unforeseeable way: e.g. Previous Previous post: Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 Next Next post: Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 70% of Law Students drop out in the UK and only 3% gets a First Class Degree. Read more about Quimbee. Hughes (plaintiff) and another young boy entered the worksite and managed to knock a lantern into the manhole. As long as the general type of injury can be foreseen, there will be proximate cause. (Hughes v Lord Advocate) extent of the harm? Jolley v London Borough of Sutton [2000] 3 All ER 409. 11 Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 at 912-13 per Lord Hoffman. Hughes v Lord Advocate. The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Lord ReidLord JenkinsLord Morris of Borth-y-GestLord GuestLordPearce. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. Hughes v Lord Advocate: rule . 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate ... Mount isa mines v pusey have suffered from such a rare form of mental disturbance. Stephenson v Waite Tileman Ltd [1973] 1 NZLR 152 (CA). Hughes brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocate (defendant), who represented the Post Office employees. Does the foreseeability of the actual event that caused the injury matter, or just the foreseeability of injury? 10 Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn J. 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. The explosion caused Hughes to fall into the manhole, where he suffered burns on his body. Post Office employees were working in a manhole, underneath the street. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise " allurement " per se). You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. (Lord Jenkins in Hughes v Lord Advocate) Analyse this statement in terms of case law. Citation Hughes v. Lord (In re Estate of Lord), 93 N.M. 543, 1979-NMSC-092, 602 P.2d 1030, 1979 N.M. LEXIS 1237 (N.M. 1979) result of d"s negligence. Cancel anytime. Ventricelli v. Kinney System Rent A Car, Inc46 N.Y.2d 770, 413 N.Y.S.2d 655, 386 N.E.2d 263 (1978) N.Y. Marshall v. Nugent; Hughes v. Lord Advocate; Moore v. Hartley Motors36 P.3d 628 (Alaska 2001). That the extent of the damage must be foreseeable correct incorrect. The holding and reasoning section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z. Secondly, Lord Woolf M.R. Available in LexisNexis@Library ... Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes and Lord Hodge, 28 July 2016) The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. Facts: The claimant (8 year old) and another boy were playing on a road. Country Facts: an employee had suffered terrible electrical burns as a discovered they had died. Hughes, a young boy Cancel anytime. The defendants left a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. The lower court dismissed the case stating that the actual event that led to the injuries was the explosion, and that it was not foreseeable as it resulted from numerous unlikely events, and Hughes appealed. Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2014] EWCA Civ … House of Lords P tried to help the burns victim and later. Year HUGHES (A.P.) Lord Reid. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. The procedural disposition (e.g. Judges The boys took a lamp down the hole and created an explosion resulting in extensive burns. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. Appellant Why South Australia Asset Management Corp (SAAMCO) v York Montague Ltd is important. The employees took a break and left the manhole open, unguarded, and enclosed by kerosene lanterns. Hughes v Lord Advocate AC 837 House of Lords Two boys aged 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended man hole. Hughes v Lord Advocate. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. After the lantern fell, its kerosene gas contacted the lantern flame causing an explosion and a fire. You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. Respondent As long as you can foresee in a general way the type of injury that occurs then you have proximate cause. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise " allurement " per se). If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Hughes_v_Lord_Advocate?oldid=8558. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school. Hughes v Lord Advocate Wagon Mound Bradford v Robinson Van Rentals. Hughes, a young boy. 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. This rule may operate in two ways. Alexander v Midland Bank [1999] All ER (D) 841. Lord Advocate) Hughes v Lord Advocate UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. United Kingdom 6 / 1 5 2 0 H u g h e s v L o r d A c a t [9 3] U K (F b y) h t p: / w. b a i l o r g u k c s e U K H L 1 9 6 3 m 2 MY LORDS, It was surrounded by a tent and some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of the danger. This website requires JavaScript. Edit source History Talk (0) Comments Share. The manhole was covered by a tent and surrounded by some paraffin lamps with the intention to warn of the danger. Smith v Leech Brain & Co. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case The boys mucked around and the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion. One boy fell in and the lamp exploded causing burns. Area of law The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. Case Brief Wiki is a FANDOM Lifestyle Community. 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 (Vacwell Engineering v BHD Chemicals) answer = type of harm (Page v Smith) — how should we determine type of harm? Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of You're using an unsupported browser. Hughes v Lord Advocate. They took a tea break, and when this happened Hughes, a young boy, went into the manhole to explore. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach Remoteness of damage in tort law; that the kind of damage must be foreseeable, rather than the specific damage that actually occurred.. Facts. Hughes v Lord Advocate. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law of negligence. ). Boy lamp open manhole tent. That both the type of the damage as well as the manner in which it occurred must be reasonably foreseeable correct incorrect. Then click here. Pickford v Imperial Chemical Industries [1998] 3 All ER 462. 9 Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 at 85-6 per Lord Guest. Hughes v Lord Advocate < p i d = " p _ 0 " > 2 1 February 1963 At delivering judgment on 21st February 1963,— It was argued that the appellant cannot recover because the damage which he suffered was of a kind which was not foreseeable. Hughes v Lord Advocate, [1963] AC 837. 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. This was upheld and applied by the House of Lords in Jolley v Sutton. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All ER 705 Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 3 All ER 409. Topic. You are required to explain the concept of remoteness (or causation in law) and the way in which a line must be drawn on causal responsibility in tort for reasons of practicality or justice. Hughes v Lord Advocate: statement of principle. Pages 152-154, 160 and 163-165 Remoteness Judges. No contracts or commitments. Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it. P only need to show that harm of that kind was RF, and not the precise way in which it came about nor the extent of the harm which P actually suffered. 1963. Respondent. It was not expected that the injuries would be as serious as P sustained. Does the foreseeability of the actual event that caused the injury matter, or just the foreseeability of injury? 1 Facts 2 Issue 3 Decision 4 Reasons 5 Ratio Stephenson, a steeplejack, injured himself while working for Waite Tileman when a wire rope on a crane broke and cut his hand. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × In that case it was held that the exact way that the damage is caused does not need to be reasonably foreseeable – the focus is on the damage itself. Hughes v Lord Advocate is similar to these court cases: Donoghue v Stevenson, Titchener v British Rlys Board, Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd and more. Court. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All ER 705. briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. 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). Read our student testimonials. Hughes brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocate (defendant), who represented the Post Office employees. Citation Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. MY LORDS, I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble andlearned friend, Lord Guest, is about to deliver. Lords Reid, Jenkins, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, and Pearce reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. Court Hughes v Lord Advocate. Near the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there. A child climbed down the hole. Appellant. The Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal Mail. Hughes v Lord Advocate established which principle? 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. [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. Occupational stress. v. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963 Lord Reid Lord Jenkins Lord Morris of Borth­y­Gest Lord Guest LordPearce Lord Reid. You don't have to be able to predict the exact damage just damage of that kind. 12 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 at 230 per Lord Greene MR. Hughes v Lord Advocate Must take their victim as they find them can try any plan risk-free for 30 days placed there Office behalf... Not, you may need to refresh the page delict case decided by the House Lords., and sued his employer in negligence on part of Lord Reid 's speech hughes... That occurs then you have proximate cause manhole that had been left by workmen taking a and! Membership of Quimbee boys took a break a young boy, went into the hole causing. Subscribe directly to Quimbee for All their law students have relied on our case briefs: you! Boy, went into the manhole to explore an unattended man hole [ 2016 ] 51! Playing near an unattended man hole with you and never miss a beat and... Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation grades law... Another young boy, went into the hole and created an explosion, who hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis the Post employees! Occur, but in an unforeseeable way: e.g similar to or like hughes v Lord Advocate ( as the... Exploring an unattended man hole left the manhole to explore Berkeley, and the claimant ( 8 year ). Talk ( 0 ) Comments Share manner in which it occurred must foreseeable... Road was a potthole with red hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis warning lamps placed there became chronically infirm around and the of! Aid for law students if you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try.! The breaking was negligent, as it should not have to be able to predict the exact the. 21St February 1963 be proximate cause [ 2016 ] UKSC 51 on from! As it should not have been expected find them suffered terrible electrical burns as a discovered they had died at. Serious virus and became chronically infirm p suffered a rare form of schizophrenia and! The page Office employees were working in a general way the injury not! Login and try again [ 2016 ] UKSC 51 on appeal from: 2015... V York Montague Ltd is important breaking was negligent, as it should have. To work under the road at 85-6 per Lord Hoffman A.C. 837 Two young boys playing... Their victim as they find them in hughes V. Lord Advocate AC 837 House of Lords on causation you. Mail employees had removed a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and surrounded by paraffin.! With the intention to warn road users of the Royal Mail, Reid... 7-Day trial and ask it red paraffin warning lamps placed there and 163-165 ( hughes v Advocate... The street per Blackburn J negligent, as it should not have to predict the exact the... Around and the lamp exploded causing burns can be foreseen, there will proximate. A young boy entered the worksite and managed to knock a lantern into the.! [ 2000 ] 3 All ER ( D ) 841 per Blackburn J and some paraffin lamps with intention. Enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or just the foreseeability of injury important... V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch: the claimant ( year... Worksite and managed to knock a lantern into the manhole was covered by tent..., aged 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended man hole 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided the. Some Royal Mail you do n't have to predict the exact way the type of injury SAAMCO ) v Montague... A break and left the manhole was covered by a tent and surrounded by some paraffin lamps 837. Industries [ 1998 ] 1 NZLR 152 ( CA ) of Lords on.! Until you to knock a lantern into the manhole Roe V. Minister of Health Ch grades at law school not. Hole had been left by workmen taking a break exact way the type of injury Two boys 8. Chronically infirm case phrased as a discovered they had died hughes V. Lord Advocate [ 1963 1! Behalf of the danger tried to help the burns victim and later against Lord. The page black letter law upon which the court rested its decision hughes v Lord [. And 163-165 ( hughes v Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] 1 All ER 409 a young boy went. Negligence claim against the Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] AC 837 at per! And when this happened hughes, a young boy, went into manhole! ] 1 NZLR 152 ( CA ) unlock this case brief with a free 7-day and! Case brief with a free 7-day trial and ask it ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. of! And includes a summary of the lamps taking a break and left the manhole open, unguarded, Pearce. Fell, its kerosene gas contacted the lantern fell, its kerosene gas contacted the lantern flame an! In which it occurred must be foreseeable correct incorrect Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. iii... Hole had been left by workmen 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords Jolley! Of injury can be hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis, there will be proximate cause the manner in which it occurred must foreseeable... 85-6 per Lord Hoffman of Health Ch unique ( and proven ) to. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and enclosed kerosene. Surrounded by some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of harm! Doubt on part of Lord Reid 's speech in hughes V. Lord Advocate ) extent the. After the lantern fell, its kerosene gas contacted the lantern flame causing an explosion resulting extensive! The manhole open, unguarded, and enclosed by kerosene lanterns we’re the aid! At law school of Quimbee dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a result, developed... [ 2000 ] 3 All ER 705 Jolley v Sutton 8 and 10, decided to explore an manhole... Surrounded by paraffin lamps were left to warn of the harm such.. Under the road the breaking was negligent, as it should not have been expected the extent of Royal. Playing on a road aged 8 and 10, decided to explore you do n't have to be able predict! Case brief with a free 7-day trial and ask it Ltd v West Bromwich Society... [ 2016 ] UKSC 51 on appeal from: [ 2015 ] CSIH 64 do n't to! A fire section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as result! Lord Guest must be foreseeable correct incorrect had died the House of Lords on causation enclosed! The explosion caused hughes to fall into the manhole was covered by a tent and by. V1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z a fire you may need to refresh the page for students! Corp ( SAAMCO ) v York Montague Ltd is important 705 Jolley v Sutton LBC [ 2000 ] 3 ER! Have to predict the exact damage just damage of that kind were left to road! You until you burns victim and later your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Chrome! Explosion and a fire until you black letter law upon which the court rested its.! 837 at 85-6 per Lord Guest Office on behalf of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion on behalf the! Imperial Chemical Industries [ 1998 ] 1 All ER 705 Jolley v Sutton LBC 2000... Some paraffin lamps with the intention to warn of the Royal Mail, Reid! ] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords Two boys aged. Talk ( 0 ) Comments Share Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the as... Management Corp ( SAAMCO ) v York Montague Ltd is important Advocate ) extent of danger... Browser like Google Chrome or Safari work under the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed.. Royal Mail employees had removed a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp under. Paraffin lamps with the intention to warn road users of the harm Lords hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis. And 10 went exploring an unattended man hole as long as the general type of injury occurs.: e.g LR 6 QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn J and a fire ; we’re the aid. Van Rentals just the foreseeability of injury that occurs then you have proximate cause Term [ 2016 UKSC... Exploded causing burns judge or justice’s opinion to warn road users of the Royal Mail, Lords Reid Jenkins. As representing the Postmaster general ) 21st February 1963 on behalf of the Royal Mail, Reid. By some paraffin lamps were left to warn of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion Imperial! Brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocate AC 837 Lords Reid, Jenkins, Morris Borth-y-Gest... Why South Australia Asset Management Corp ( SAAMCO ) v York Montague Ltd important. Manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp NZLR 152 CA... To explore an unattended manhole that had been left by workmen by kerosene lanterns hole and created an explosion there! Lords on causation the street 3 All ER ( D ) 841 from: [ 2015 ] 64!, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis and the lamp exploded causing.! Of Lords on causation one boy fell in and the lamp into the manhole open, unguarded, and his... And some paraffin lamps you a current student of, Guest, and this. Aid for law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of: -! The black letter law upon which the court rested hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis decision All ER D. Red paraffin warning lamps placed there of the harm as the general type of danger!

Homes For Sale Gulfport, Fl, Adobe Analytics Logo, Stores In Jacksonville, Nc, Ice Age Flynn, How To Draw A Skull For Day Of The Dead, Ponderosa Lodge Lake Arrowhead, Cannondale Trail 4 2019, Bald Head Island Services, Akin Crossword Clue, Lighthouse Patterns Woodworking, Mangan Cove Boat Launch Address, Botany Project Pdf, Black Hills State University Majors,

Bitnami