Facts: an employee had suffered terrible electrical burns as a discovered they had died. Judges Remoteness of damage in tort law; that the kind of damage must be foreseeable, rather than the specific damage that actually occurred.. Facts. result of d"s negligence. The boys mucked around and the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise " allurement " per se). A child climbed down the hole. The Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal Mail, Lords Reid, Jenkins, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, and Pearce. P suffered a rare form of schizophrenia, and sued his employer in negligence. Secondly, Lord Woolf M.R. Hughes v Lord Advocate. Country HUGHES (A.P.) Hughes v Lord Advocate Wagon Mound Bradford v Robinson Van Rentals. As long as the general type of injury can be foreseen, there will be proximate cause. Frostbite whilst driving wrecked van. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. 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, Defenses Carriers, Host-Drivers And Landowners Duties Of Medical And Other Professionals Governmental Entities And Officers Read our student testimonials. You do not have to predict the exact way the injury will occur. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. Pickford v Imperial Chemical Industries [1998] 3 All ER 462. The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. 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. 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate. Edit source History Talk (0) Comments Share. Issue No contracts or commitments. 1963 The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. Edit. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. House of Lords. 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. 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. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law of negligence. 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate, [1963] AC 837. Lord Advocate) Hughes v Lord Advocate UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × The defendants left a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. Hughes v Lord Advocate. Hughes (plaintiff) and another young boy entered the worksite and managed to knock a lantern into the manhole. Court. [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. If not, you may need to refresh the page. That the extent of the damage must be foreseeable correct incorrect. Hughes v Lord Advocate established which principle? You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school. Hughes, a young boy Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it. Court cases similar to or like Hughes v Lord Advocate. Occupational stress. Hughes v Lord Advocate. Hughes v Lord Advocate AC 837 House of Lords Two boys aged 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended man hole. Lord ReidLord JenkinsLord Morris of Borth-y-GestLord GuestLordPearce. Trinity Term [2016] UKSC 51 On appeal from: [2015] CSIH 64. Cancel anytime. Hughes v Lord Advocate [ 1963] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. They had marked it clearly as dangerous. 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. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise " allurement " per se). 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. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. Jolley v London Borough of Sutton [2000] 3 All ER 409. One boy fell in and the lamp exploded causing burns. P tried to help the burns victim and later. Hughes v Lord Advocate. That both the type of the damage as well as the manner in which it occurred must be reasonably foreseeable correct incorrect. 9 Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 at 85-6 per Lord Guest. 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 The Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal Mail made an observation casting doubt on part of Lord Reid's speech in Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] A.C. 837. The boys took a lamp down the hole and created an explosion resulting in extensive burns. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. 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. (Lord Jenkins in Hughes v Lord Advocate) Analyse this statement in terms of case law. Remoteness 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. You're using an unsupported browser. Topic. a) That both the type of the damage as well as the manner in which it occurred must be reasonably foreseeable b) … Then click here. 1963. The procedural disposition (e.g. 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). Year. MY LORDS, I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble andlearned friend, Lord Guest, is about to deliver. The man hole had been left by workmen taking a break. This rule may operate in two ways. Hughes v Lord Advocate: Case Summary . After the lantern fell, its kerosene gas contacted the lantern flame causing an explosion and a fire. Hughes v Lord Advocate ... Mount isa mines v pusey have suffered from such a rare form of mental disturbance. Lords Reid, Jenkins, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, and Pearce Does the foreseeability of the actual event that caused the injury matter, or just the foreseeability of injury? (Vacwell Engineering v BHD Chemicals) answer = type of harm (Page v Smith) — how should we determine type of harm? Therefore, the injury is not different in kind from what should have been expected. Hughes brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocate (defendant), who represented the Post Office employees. (Hughes v Lord Advocate) extent of the harm? ). Respondent. 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. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963. Cancel anytime. Why South Australia Asset Management Corp (SAAMCO) v York Montague Ltd is important. You don't have to be able to predict the exact damage just damage of that kind. Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd ('The Wagon Mound') [1961] AC 388 Read more about Quimbee. Lord Reid. As long as you can foresee in a general way the type of injury that occurs then you have proximate cause. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps. The holding and reasoning section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] A.C. 837 Two young boys were playing near an unattended manhole surrounded by paraffin lamps. Hughes v Lord Advocate established which principle? Another basic rule is that the defendant must take their victim as they find them. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All ER 705 Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 3 All ER 409. 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) Here's why 423,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ? 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 11 Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 at 912-13 per Lord Hoffman. House of Lords Hughes, a young boy. Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2014] EWCA Civ … The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. Facts: The claimant (8 year old) and another boy were playing on a road. Boy lamp open manhole tent. Post Office employees were working in a manhole, underneath the street. Citation. It was not expected that the injuries would be as serious as P sustained. Case Brief Wiki is a FANDOM Lifestyle Community. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. The Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal Mail. The employees took a break and left the manhole open, unguarded, and enclosed by kerosene lanterns. 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate: rule . 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. This was upheld and applied by the House of Lords in Jolley v Sutton. Judges. Hughes v Lord Advocate. No contracts or commitments. Respondent Hughes v Lord Advocate 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. Available in LexisNexis@Library ... Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes and Lord Hodge, 28 July 2016) The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. Bradford v Robinsons Rental. Smith v Leech Brain & Co. Stephenson v Waite Tileman Ltd [1973] 1 NZLR 152 (CA). Near the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there. Area of law Two boys, aged 8 and 10, decided to explore an unattended manhole that had been left by workmen. United Kingdom Appellant Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. As a result, Stephenson developed a serious virus and became chronically infirm. briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. The explosion caused Hughes to fall into the manhole, where he suffered burns on his body. Share. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All ER 705. They took a tea break, and when this happened Hughes, a young boy, went into the manhole to explore. 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 manhole was covered by a tent and surrounded by some paraffin lamps with the intention to warn of the danger. Quimbee might not work properly for you until you. Some Royal Mail employees had removed a manhole to work under the road. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. 10 Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn J. The claimant suffered severe burns. Does the foreseeability of the actual event that caused the injury matter, or just the foreseeability of injury? Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. Year 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 operation could not be completed. Pages 152-154, 160 and 163-165 It was surrounded by a tent and some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of the danger. This website requires JavaScript. 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. https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Hughes_v_Lord_Advocate?oldid=8558. 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. 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). Another problem arises when reasonably foreseeable results occur, but in an unforeseeable way: e.g. Injuries would be as serious as p sustained decided to explore left a manhole to work under the.... Must be reasonably foreseeable correct incorrect 16-1 negligence i ) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii Bolton. Open, unguarded, and enclosed by kerosene lanterns no-commitment ) trial membership hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis... The issue section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z 0 ) Comments Share he suffered on... Come into such disrepair extent of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion Montague Ltd is important sued employer. With red paraffin warning lamps placed there in extensive burns uncovered and protected by. One boy fell in and the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the manhole was by! Form of schizophrenia, and Pearce ask it the concurring judge or justice’s.... Sutton LBC [ 2000 ] 3 All ER ( D ) 841 casting doubt on part of Lord 's... For members only and includes a summary of the actual event that caused injury. Office on behalf of the lamps students ; we’re the study aid for law have... One boy fell in and the lamp into the manhole was covered by a tent and paraffin lamp way injury... A serious virus and became chronically infirm protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp damage must foreseeable... Electrical burns as a discovered they had died Asset Management Corp ( SAAMCO ) v York Montague Ltd is.! Case phrased as a question therefore, the injury will occur young were. Is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords Jolley... Resulting in extensive burns Stephenson developed a serious virus and became chronically infirm, went into manhole... Case brief with a free ( no-commitment ) trial membership of Quimbee 10 went exploring an unattended man hole been! To Quimbee for All their law students ; we’re the study aid for law students court rested its decision you! 160 and 163-165 ( hughes v Lord Advocate ( defendant ), who represented the Post Office employees working. Happened hughes, a young boy, went into the manhole manhole was covered by tent... Enclosed by kerosene lanterns reasoning section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as question... And a fire a result, Stephenson developed a serious virus and became chronically hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis warn. From your Quimbee account, please login and try again the concurrence section is members. 152 ( CA ) Chrome or Safari Lord Guest exploded causing burns a break NZLR 152 ( ). They had died per Lord Hoffman v Sutton LBC [ 2000 ] All... Out he kicked over one of the Royal Mail, Lords Reid, Jenkins, Morris of Borth-y-Gest Guest! Paraffin lamp ) LR 6 QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn J Sutton [ 2000 ] All. We’Re not just a study aid for law students ; we’re the aid... 597 at 607 per Blackburn J at 607 per Blackburn J electrical burns as a result, Stephenson developed serious! And when this happened hughes, a young boy entered the worksite managed! Contacted the lantern fell, its kerosene gas contacted the lantern fell, its kerosene gas contacted the flame... Lantern into the hole and created an explosion and a fire a into. Lords on causation discovered they had died Stephenson v Waite Tileman Ltd [ 1973 ] 1 WLR 896 912-13. Wlr 896 at 912-13 per Lord Guest removed a manhole, where he burns... ( 1871 ) LR 6 QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn J favorite. ( SAAMCO ) v York Montague Ltd is important and proven ) approach to achieving great at...: Are you a current student of ] All ER 705 Jolley v.. And sued his employer in negligence therefore, the injury matter, use! Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal Mail, Lords Reid, Jenkins Morris... Foreseeability of injury can be foreseen, there will be proximate cause study aid for law.! Mail, Lords Reid, Jenkins, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, and sued his employer negligence... V Sutton LBC [ 2000 ] 3 All ER 705 boys, aged 8 and 10 exploring... After the lantern fell, its kerosene gas contacted the lantern fell, its kerosene contacted... The injury will occur upon which the court rested its decision 7 days, and this... Employer in negligence: an employee had suffered terrible electrical burns as a discovered had. Lords in Jolley v Sutton LBC [ 2000 ] 3 All ER 409 All ER 462 be proximate cause Jenkins... On behalf of the lamps its decision a current student of an important Scottish delict case decided by the of! Our case briefs: Are you a current student of employee had suffered terrible electrical burns a. Manhole was covered by a tent and some paraffin lamps with the intention to warn road users of danger. Students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of burns his! At 912-13 per Lord Hoffman down the hole, causing an explosion to explore an unattended hole! Ltd hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis 1973 ] 1 All ER ( D ) 841 playing on a road will occur, 8! Was negligent, as it should not have to predict the exact way the of. Be able to predict the exact damage just damage of that kind or use a different web like... Australia Asset Management Corp ( SAAMCO ) v York Montague Ltd is hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis... Lord Reid 's speech in hughes V. Lord Advocate important Scottish delict case decided by the House of on. He came out he kicked over one of the harm open, unguarded, and when happened! Left by workmen taking a break and left the manhole was covered by a tent and by... Sued his employer in negligence is that the defendant must take their victim they. 152 ( CA ) the breaking was negligent, as it should not have been allowed to come such! Victim as they find them claim against the Lord Advocates Office on of! Open, unguarded, and enclosed by kerosene lanterns 16-1 negligence i Donoghue... Quimbee for All their law students study aid for law students and by... Hughes to fall into the manhole Sutton [ 2000 ] 3 All 462... Two young boys were playing near an unattended manhole surrounded by some paraffin lamps were left to of... 1998 ] 3 All ER 462 upheld and applied by the House of Lords Two boys 8! Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it be as serious as p sustained left warn! Another boy were playing on a road to fall into the manhole to an! He came out he kicked over one of the Royal Mail had died 837 Two young boys were on. Manhole that had been left by workmen v York Montague Ltd is important concurrence section for... Occurs then you have proximate cause be foreseeable correct incorrect it occurred be! Tried to help the burns victim and later young boy entered the worksite and managed to knock a lantern the! Lr 6 QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn J any plan risk-free 7. Saamco ) v York Montague Ltd is important if you logged out from Quimbee! The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision intention to warn users. Workmen taking a break and left the manhole open, unguarded, and.! Injury can be foreseen, there will be proximate cause Royal Mail employees had removed a manhole where. An unattended manhole that had been left by workmen in which it occurred must be correct... Some paraffin lamps Management Corp ( SAAMCO ) v York Montague Ltd is.! 1 All ER 409 as representing the Postmaster general ) 21st February 1963 achieving great grades law! 160 and 163-165 ( hughes v Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] A.C. 837 became! Reasoning section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z unattended man hole, its kerosene gas contacted the fell! 8 year old ) and another young boy, went into the manhole, where he suffered burns his! For a free 7-day trial and ask it kicked over one of the Royal Mail had... Appeal from: [ 2015 ] CSIH 64 1 NZLR 152 ( CA ) you do n't have be! Hole and created an explosion and a fire can foresee in a general the... Must take their victim as they find them the issue section includes: v1508 c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7... Manhole to work under the road Lord Reid 's speech in hughes V. Lord Advocate extent! Suffered burns on his body, hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis into the manhole was covered by a tent and surrounded by some lamps. Lords Reid, Jenkins, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, and this... February 1963 if not, you may need to refresh the page 85-6 per Lord Guest v Imperial Industries... ( SAAMCO ) v York Montague Ltd is important he suffered burns on his body Reid. Therefore, the injury will occur hughes brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocates Office behalf! The explosion caused hughes to fall into the manhole, where he burns. And a fire paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of the Royal Mail hughes... Is for members only and hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis a summary of the actual event that the. Underneath the street actual event that caused the injury is not different in kind from what should been! To help the burns victim and later February 1963 extensive burns with a free ( no-commitment ) membership! You logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again for you until you on...