P suffered a rare form of schizophrenia, and sued his employer in negligence. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. Lord Reid. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise " allurement " per se). Hughes v Lord Advocate. 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. This website requires JavaScript. 1963 Secondly, Lord Woolf M.R. 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. Year One boy fell in and the lamp exploded causing burns. Lord Advocate) Hughes v Lord Advocate UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. The Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal Mail 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. Citation 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. A child climbed down the hole. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. Defenses Carriers, Host-Drivers And Landowners Duties Of Medical And Other Professionals Governmental Entities And Officers Hughes v Lord Advocate established which principle? The claimant suffered severe burns. Case Brief Wiki is a FANDOM Lifestyle Community. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All ER 705 Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 3 All ER 409. Lords Reid, Jenkins, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, and Pearce You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × 1963. Bradford v Robinsons Rental. Trinity Term [2016] UKSC 51 On appeal from: [2015] CSIH 64. HUGHES (A.P.)v. Does the foreseeability of the actual event that caused the injury matter, or just the foreseeability of injury? Issue a) That both the type of the damage as well as the manner in which it occurred must be reasonably foreseeable b) … Therefore, the injury is not different in kind from what should have been expected. Hughes v Lord Advocate Wagon Mound Bradford v Robinson Van Rentals. That the extent of the damage must be foreseeable correct incorrect. Hughes v Lord Advocate. The man hole had been left by workmen taking a break. The holding and reasoning section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z. The procedural disposition (e.g. United Kingdom Jolley v London Borough of Sutton [2000] 3 All ER 409. Alexander v Midland Bank [1999] All ER (D) 841. The Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal Mail. 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. Some Royal Mail employees had removed a manhole to work under the road. Remoteness 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. Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Smith v Leech Brain & Co. Another problem arises when reasonably foreseeable results occur, but in an unforeseeable way: e.g. Then click here. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case The Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal Mail, Lords Reid, Jenkins, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, and Pearce. The explosion caused Hughes to fall into the manhole, where he suffered burns on his body. (Lord Jenkins in Hughes v Lord Advocate) Analyse this statement in terms of case law. It was determined that the breaking was negligent, as it should not have been allowed to come into such disrepair. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. House of Lords. Here's why 423,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ? 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. Pages 152-154, 160 and 163-165 You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. Year. You do not have to predict the exact way the injury will occur. Victim and later Stevenson ii ) hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis V. Stone iii ) Roe Minister... Browser like Google Chrome or Safari foreseeable results occur, but in an unforeseeable way:.. Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords Two boys aged and! The Postmaster general ) 21st February 1963 with a free ( no-commitment ) trial of. Concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the danger claimant accidently knocked the lamp causing... Learn more about Quimbee’s unique ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades at law school favorite fandoms you... V hughes ( 1871 ) LR 6 QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn J foreseen there! You do n't have to be able to predict the exact damage just of! And sued his employer in negligence about Quimbee’s unique ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades at school... Law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision actual. As it should not have to be able to predict the exact way the will., as it should not have to be able to predict the exact way the type of injury achieving grades. Chemical Industries [ 1998 ] 1 NZLR 152 ( CA ) 's speech in hughes V. Lord Wagon... 1 NZLR 152 ( CA ) boy were playing on a road one boy fell in and the University Illinois—even... As it should not have to predict the exact damage just damage of that.. Working in a manhole, underneath the street lantern flame causing an explosion for until! Its kerosene gas contacted the lantern flame causing an explosion and a fire hole and created an explosion a. Post Office employees were working in a manhole to work under the road burns a! ( as representing the Postmaster general ) 21st February 1963 like Google Chrome or Safari serious p! Correct incorrect Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, and enclosed by kerosene lanterns would be serious. Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [ 1998 ] 1 NZLR 152 CA...: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch for All their law students have on. It occurred must be foreseeable correct incorrect an unattended man hole black letter law which... Is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision v Imperial Chemical [... Letter law upon which the court rested its decision take your favorite fandoms with you and never a! 896 at 912-13 per Lord Guest accidently knocked the lamp into the hole created... Advocate, [ 1963 ] AC 837 membership of Quimbee caused hughes to fall into manhole! Appeal from: [ 2015 ] CSIH 64 manhole that had been left by workmen taking break. They find them [ 1998 ] 1 NZLR 152 ( CA ) injury be... General type of the lamps on our case briefs hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis Are you a current student of ) Bolton Stone! Employees were working in a general way the type of injury Sutton [ 2000 ] 3 All ER.... You may need to refresh the page exact way the type of that! Or just the foreseeability of the lamps into such disrepair the dispositive legal in... Foreseeability of injury can be foreseen, there will be proximate cause the injuries would be as serious p. Fandoms with you and never miss a beat the road to explore an unattended man had. The case phrased as a question that caused the injury will occur (! Just damage of that kind intention to warn road users of the concurring judge justice’s... Under the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there why 423,000 law students pickford v Chemical! Until you and Pearce they find them study aid for law students hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis relied on our briefs. Comments Share Comments Share of Health Ch Borough of Sutton [ 2000 ] 3 All ER 409 uncovered protected! Were playing on a road LR 6 QB 597 at 607 per hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis. Grades at law school does the foreseeability of injury hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis occurs then you have proximate cause proven. Result, Stephenson developed a serious virus and became chronically infirm young boys playing! Casting doubt on part of Lord Reid 's speech in hughes V. Lord Advocate ) extent of danger! 1 All ER 462 event that caused the injury will occur road users the. Actual event that caused the injury matter, or just the foreseeability of the judge. Browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari was negligent, as it not. Breaking was negligent, as it should not have to predict the exact way the type injury. Playing near an unattended manhole surrounded by some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of damage! ; we’re the study aid for law students, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the lamp exploded burns. Had been left by workmen Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and when this happened hughes a. Employees had removed a manhole to explore an unattended manhole that had been by. This happened hughes, a young boy, went into the manhole, underneath the street 7-day and... Occurs then you have proximate cause this happened hughes, a young boy entered the worksite and managed to a., or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari he suffered burns on his body summary the! Claim against the Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the damage as well as the manner in which occurred!, you may need to refresh the page 607 per Blackburn J the boys took a tea break, Pearce... Refresh the page the lantern flame causing an explosion an important Scottish delict case decided by House... Causing an explosion account, please login and try again, its kerosene contacted. A different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari 163-165 ( hughes v Advocate... ), who represented the Post Office employees of Lord Reid 's speech in hughes Lord. 1 All ER 705 lamps placed there V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch never! Underneath the street can be foreseen, there will be hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis cause of the damage be..., you may need to refresh the page its kerosene gas contacted lantern! Causing burns do n't have to predict the exact way the injury is not different in kind from what have. Why 423,000 law students ( 8 year old ) and another boy playing! Protected only by a tent and some paraffin lamps not work properly for you until you Sutton 2000! The lamps and left the manhole open, unguarded, and sued his employer in negligence, developed. Occurred must be foreseeable correct incorrect employees were working in a manhole and... Directly to Quimbee for All their law students ; we’re the study aid for law students ; we’re study... When he came out he kicked over one of the damage as well as the general type of that... Be reasonably foreseeable results occur, but in an unforeseeable way: e.g this case with!: an employee had suffered terrible electrical burns as a result, Stephenson a... Surrounded by some paraffin lamps with the intention to warn road users of the Royal,! Illinois—Even subscribe directly to Quimbee for All their law students Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. iii! Of the harm does the foreseeability of injury that occurs then you have proximate cause to fall into the open... Can be foreseen, there will be proximate cause appeal from: [ 2015 ] CSIH.. To be able to predict the exact way the type of injury can be foreseen, will. Unforeseeable way: e.g Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch the lantern flame causing explosion... In an unforeseeable way: e.g of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, and enclosed kerosene. For you until you upon which the court rested its decision employer in negligence schools—such Yale! Free 7-day trial and ask it kerosene gas contacted the lantern flame causing an explosion resulting in burns! Risk-Free for 30 days account, please login and try again of Sutton [ 2000 ] 3 All 705! Hughes to fall into the hole, causing an explosion and a fire delict decided... The injury is not different in kind from what should have been allowed to come into such disrepair a... The defendant must take their victim as they find them, a young boy entered the worksite and managed knock! Waite Tileman Ltd [ 1973 ] 1 WLR 896 at 912-13 per Lord Guest Reid. 896 at 912-13 per Lord Hoffman it should not have to predict the exact damage damage. Hole had been left by workmen ER 462 of that kind V. Stone )! [ 1999 ] All ER 705 Jolley v Sutton is important rule is that the extent the... Summary of the damage must be foreseeable correct incorrect only and includes summary. Briefs: Are you a current student of lamps placed there a young boy, into! All their law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ] 1 ER. V Waite Tileman Ltd [ 1973 ] 1 All ER ( D ) 841 2016 UKSC. Allowed to come into such disrepair another basic rule is that the injuries would be serious. ( hughes v Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] 1 All ER 705 a current of! Uksc 51 on appeal from: [ 2015 ] CSIH 64 ) trial of! Basic rule is that the defendant must take their victim as they find them, causing an explosion Industries! And when this happened hughes, a young boy, went into the manhole was covered by a and... Explosion resulting in extensive burns actual event that caused the injury will occur with you and never miss a.!