hughes v lord advocate facts

The boy falls into a hole and is badly burned. At night, the manhole was left covered with a tent and surrounded by paraffin lamps to warn traffic about the open hole. an act breaking the chain of causation). Willis, a bystander, picked up the squib and chucked it elsewhere to protect himself from injury. LORD ADVOCATE. It is also influential in the English law of tort . <—– Previous case MY LORDS, I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble andlearned friend, Lord Guest, is … Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921]. He applied for compensation on the ground of this incapacity. Held: Whether a chain of causation had been broken was a question of fact. Relatives of the drowned seamen sued. A man and a boy went and explored the man hole. 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate Facts: Post Office workmen left a manhole unattended, covered only with a tent and with paraffin lamps by the hole. The House of Lords rejected the defendant’s appeal, holding that the damage was not too remote. Defenses Carriers, Host-Drivers And Landowners Duties Of Medical And Other Professionals Governmental Entities And Officers The remoteness of damage rule limits a defendant's liability to what can be reasonably justified, ensures a claimant does not profit from an event and aids insurers to assess future liabilities. The defendant claimed that the damage was too remote to be foreseeable. Court cases similar to or like Hughes v Lord Advocate. HUGHES (A.P.)v. o Two young boys came across open manhole, and took one of the lamps into the tent. D employees postal authority, dig 3m hole, left kerosene lamps, boys pick up lamps go inside, on way out boy trips, lamp explodes shoots up flame, kid falls down, boy suffers extensive burns. Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405. No Acts. In R v Vickers, the Court confirmed that an intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient as the mens rea for murder. Therefore, a defendant will remain liable even if foreseeable harm is caused in an unforeseeable manner. Lord Guest, with whom Lords Pearce and Reid agreed, rejected the defendant’s argument that the loss was too remote as it came from an explosion. An explosion occurred and the child was severely injured. His lip contained pre-cancerous cells which were triggered by the injury sustained and he died 3 years later. Held: The defendant was held to be liable: the burn was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence and this resulted in his death. Near the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there. Lord Reid. It was determined that the breaking was negligent, as it should not have been allowed to come into such disrepair. Employees of a post office left a man hole uncovered unattended. Hughes brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocate (defendant), who represented the Post Office employees. The second use is narrower than the first Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 Facts: o A group of workmen left an open manhole, guarded by paraffin lamps. Topic. Near the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there. made an observation casting doubt on part of Lord Reid's speech in Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] A.C. 837. Held: The court of appeal held that the defendant was liable even though the magnitude of the consequences was not foreseeable. The defendant accepted liability for the injury sustained during his employment but disputed liability for the second injuries resulting from claimant's actions in jumping down the stairs. Chapter 4.C. When they came up they dropped the lamp which exploded and caused damage. It includes all the. The boys mucked around and the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion. 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. He strained his back and hips and his leg was prone to giving way. Workmen were completing some underground maintenance of some telephone equipment, meaning they had to open a manhole cover. During the break-in, Vickers came across the victim who resided in the flat above the shop. The workmen left around 5pm for a tea break nearby; before leaving, they withdrew the ladder, leaving it outside the tent. It is also influential in the English law of tort . Landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. Smith v ... Hughes v Lord Advocate. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963. 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. The lamp fell into the hole below and hit the cables inside it. The officer argued it was Mr John’s fault because had he not crashed then the officer would not have found himself in the situation he was in, Held: It was held that the senior officer’s instructions and failure to close the entrance to the tunnel was negligent and broke the chain of causation: the claimants decision to go through the tunnel was not negligent and was therefore entitled to full damages from the senior officer, Facts: The Council (the defendant) negligently fractured a water pipe outside D’s house. Chaudry v Prahbaker [2000] - … Lord ReidLord JenkinsLord Morris of Borth-y-GestLord GuestLordPearce. He fractured the superfluous thumb whilst working. Hughes v Lord Advocate - … SO the defendant was not liable. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 House of Lords Two boys aged 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended man hole. Squatters had also moved in and caused further damage. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Court cases similar to or like Donoghue v Stevenson. Re C (Female Genital Mutilation and Forced Marriage: Fact Finding) [2019] EWHC 3449 (Fam): Should the standard of proof be different for vulnerable witnesses. (Lord Jenkins in Hughes v Lord Advocate) Analyse this statement in terms of case law. At hospital he was given an anti-tetanus injection, where he contracted encephalitis due to an allergy of which he was previously unaware. Contents Learn how to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and pupillages by making your law applications awesome. The plaintiff sued the defendant for the value of the entire boat. Therefore, the type of harm suffered was reasonably foreseeable. The proceeds of this eBook helps us to run the site and keep the service FREE! (Lord Jenkins in Hughes v Lord Advocate) Analyse this statement in terms of case law. The claimant, an eight-year-old boy, and a friend, climbed into the hole. © 2020 Digestible Notes All Rights Reserved. This is specifically made for exam purpose of tort law. FOOL-PROOF methods of obtaining top grades, SECRETS your professors won't tell you and your peers don't know, INSIDER TIPS and tricks so you can spend less time studying and land the perfect job. Facts: The claimant had suffered from Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) over a period of time and was in recovery when he was involved in a minor car accident due to the defendant's negligence. The boy brought a claim against the workmen in the tort of negligence. S v Stavast 1964 (3) SA 617 (T), S v Bernardus H 1965 (3) SA 287 (A) and Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 applied. A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote. Lord Reid. In Hughes v Lord Advocate, the HL held that only the type of harm needs to be reasonably foreseeable. It was surrounded by a tent and some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of the danger. Held: The defendant was held to be liable for negligence of the workmen. Case Information. MY LORDS, I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble andlearned friend, Lord Guest, is about to deliver. 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate - Facts o Workers left a manhole open and unattended. Law of Tort – Foreseeability – Negligence – Damages – Remoteness of Damage – Eggshell Skull Rule – Causation. 4. The Wagon Mound (a ship) docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. However, they put some warning lamps (flammable things) around it. But, comparing the facts of and outcomes of cases in this branch of the law is a misuse of the only proper use of precedent, viz to identify the relevant rule to apply to the facts as found. The eggshell skull rule applies and the defendant must take his victim as he finds him. Held: It was held that there had been no break in the chain of causation by the action of throwing on the squib elsewhere: the actions were a foreseeable national consequence. I am satisfied that […] HUGHES (A.P.) Two young children came upon the site The claimant suffered severe burns. HUGHES (A.P.) A child stumbled over a lamp. This caused extensive damage and the property had to be vacated. The men had opened a manhole and had erected a weather tent over it, with an access ladder inside. Facts: The claimant (8 year old) and another boy were playing on a road. It was held, therefore, that since frostbite was of same type and kind as these harms the defendant could be liable, Facts: A person had one normal thumb and a second superfluous thumb on the same hand. It was treated by splinting but the pain continued. Whilst an explosion was unlikely and unforeseeable, the presence of unattended paraffin lamps nevertheless made it reasonably foreseeable that someone would suffer from burns. Facts: The defendant's employees negligently loaded cargo onto the plaintiff's (claimant's) ship. This was a harsh judgment and does not stand anymore! Held: The hospital was negligent but not liable, since even the proper procedure would not have revealed the allergy. Hughes v. Lord Advocate - Proximate Cause Instant Facts: While playing in and around an unguarded open manhole, two young boys accidentally knocked a kerosene lantern into the manhole, breaking the lantern and causing an unforeseeable explosion. With regard to Hugh and his subsequent heart failure, candidates should have stated the doctrine of ‘take your victim as you find him’ (see (e.g.) 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. He explained that the explosion was only the means through which the damage (ie the burns) occurred. Facts: A ship called The Oropesa was negligently navigated and collided with another ship, the Manchester Regiment. Facts. The claimant 8 year old boy knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion which burned him. Share. In Hughes v Lord Advocate, the HL held that only the type of harm needs to be reasonably foreseeable.Therefore, a defendant will remain liable even if foreseeable harm is caused in an unforeseeable manner. Hughes v Lord Advocate: facts. o One of the boys accidentally knocked the lamp over into the manhole, which exploded. Vickers broke into a premises in order to steal money. Loss of a chance I agree with him that this appeal should be allowed and I shall only add some general observations. At night, a young boy entered the tent and knocked one of the lamps into the hole, causing an explosion. The complainant was employed as a galvaniser of steel for the defendants, Leech Brain & Co Ltd. Facts. Thus the judge was entitled to find that on the balance of probabilities an apparently unlikely set of facts had happened, as in Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 and was not obliged to hold that the claimant had failed to discharge the burden of proof as in Rhesa Shipping v Edmunds [1985] 1 WLR 948. But the decision of the Court of Appeal is no longer law; and Mr James relied principally on Hughes v. Lord Advocate, a case in which the House of Lords treated The Wagon Mound as correctly stating the law, but distinguished it on the facts. As a result, Stephenson developed a serious virus and became chronically infirm. The crew negligently allowed furnace oil to leak. 1963 SC (HL) 31 [1963] AC 837 [1963] UKHL 8 [1963] 1 All ER 705 [1963] 2 WLR 779 1963 SLT 150. In supporting this conclusion, Lord Pearce said: But to demand too great precision in the test of foreseeability would be unfair to the pursuer since the facets of misadventure are innumerable. Hughes v. Lord Advocate At delivering judgment on 21st February 1963,— LORD REID .—I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble and learned friend, Lord Guest, is about to deliver. Donoghue v Stevenson. He was advised that an operation was required to remove not just the extra thumb but also the joint of the normal thumb. Remoteness of damage in tort law; that the kind of damage must be foreseeable, rather than the specific damage that actually occurred. Facts: The defendant employed the claimant who slipped on a ladder at work because of oil on the step. We believe that human potential is limitless if you're willing to put in the work. The case reached the House of Lords, where the main issue was whether the damage was too remote. It was not necessary to show that death by cancer was foreseeable, nor that an ordinary person would not have died from the injury. Workmen were completing some underground maintenance of some telephone equipment, meaning they had to open a manhole cover. The senior officer instructed them both to ride their motorcycles to the other side of the tunnel and close the entrance to the tunnel as he had forgotten to close it earlier. The claimant was not physically injured but the incident triggered his ME, meaning he was unable to return to his job as a teacher. 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. The boy was thrown into the hole, and he suffered from severe burns. The defendant argued it was unforeseeable that there would be an explosion, and therefore the loss was too remote. The court disagreed, saying that a splashing was a physical displacement, whereas an eruption was a chemical reaction which was NOT … Facts. FACTS: A boy knocks a lamp into a manhole, which causes an explosion. 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) Brief Fact Summary. Page 523 Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963) - Kind of injury and manner of its occurrence. Post Office workers were working underground and left the manhole unattended surrounded with kerosene lamps while on break. Plaintiff Hughes, an 8 year old boy, was playing at the unattended site and knocked over a kerosene lamp, … However, the kind of injury- burning- was … The court held it was too remote for the defendant to be loable for the destruction of the boats and wharf: it was harm of an unforeseeable kind. * Hughes went into the manhole using a ladder and dropped the lamp which exploded. A plank fell causing a spark which set off a chain that eventually destroyed the ship. One of the officers was struck by an oncoming vehicle. However, the kind of injury- burning- was … 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, On the facts, Hugh’s injuries resulting from the explosion may be held to be broadly similar to that caused by fire: see Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]. Held: It was held that the claimant's actions amounted to a novus actus inteveniens (i.e. REASONS: The exact circumstances that created the burns were not foreseeable. So he defendants were not liable. The court said that said some form of illness was foreseeable from having mouldy pig food, even if e-coli and death was not foreseeable, so should be held liable (this is very similar to Hughes v Lord Advocate, but compare the case to Tremain v Pike). The House of Lords held that the defendant could only escape liability if the damage was not a kind which was reasonably foreseeable. Hughes v Lord Advocate. Share. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 8 is a famous Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. When they came up they dropped the lamp which exploded and caused damage. ⇒ If the injury was of a different kind than the foreseeable type, then the defendant could have escaped liability. HOUSE OF LORDS. The lifeboat capsized in the heavy seas and 9 of the crew drowned. 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. As they climbed out the boys knocked one of the paraffin lamps into the The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise allurement per se). Robinson v Post Office and another, Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound) [1961], Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2003], Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969], R (Freedom and Justice Party) v SS Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs: How Should International Law Inform the Common Law. The family sued the post office. Facts. Hughes v Lord Advocate. Topic. The claimant suffered frost bite as a result. Hughes v. Lord Advocate At delivering judgment on 21st February 1963,— LORD REID .—I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble and learned friend, Lord Guest, is about to deliver. v. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963 Lord Reid Lord Jenkins Lord Morris of Borth­y­Gest Lord Guest LordPearce Lord Reid. ATTORNEY(S) ACTS. Hughes v Lord Advocate AC 837 Facts: The claimant (8 year old) and another boy were playing on a road. Remoteness - This is specifically made for exam purpose of tort law. Facts: The claimant, a herdsman, contracted rare Weil's disease while working for the defendant. The boys mucked around and the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion. Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963 Facts: Workmen left unattended an open manhole in the middle of the road at the end of their shift. v. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963 Lord Reid Lord Jenkins Lord Morris of Borth­y­Gest Lord Guest LordPearce Lord Reid. As a result many pigs caught e-coli and died. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. I do not think that this authority assists him. They had erected a canvas shelter over the manhole and had placed paraffin warning lamps around the shelter. Two police officers on motorcycles arrived at the scene. In Hughes v Lord Advocate, the HL held that only the type of harm needs to be reasonably foreseeable. ✅ Research Methods, Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and more! Lord Advocate. Facts: Shepherd (the defendant) chucked a lighted squib into a crowd of people. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. Digestible Notes was created with a simple objective: to make learning simple and accessible. Facts: As a result of Mr John’s negligent driving his car overturned in a tunnel. FACTS: A boy knocks a lamp into a manhole, which causes an explosion. Held: The court held that the defendants had exposed the claimant to severe cold and fatigue likely to cause a common cold, pneumonia, or chilblains. Therefore, a defendant will remain liable even if foreseeable harm is caused in an unforeseeable manner. I am satisfied that […] 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. Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd, Next case —–> Held: It was held that the defendant was liable. This eBook is constructed by lawyers and recruiters from the world's leading law firms and barristers' chambers. So the defendant was liable for his death. ⇒ Unreasonable actions would have broken the chain of causation → so if one of the lifeboat crew had drowned after deciding to swim to the Oropesa then the chain would have been broken and the owners of Oropesa would not have been liable for his death, ⇒ ‘To break the chain of causation it must be shown that there is…a new cause which disturbs the sequence of events, something which can be described as either unreasonable or extraneous or extrinsic.’ (Lord Wright at 39). Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. The squib landed at someone else’s foot, who then chucked it elsewhere too, before it exploded in Scott’s (the claimant) face, putting out one of his eyes. Hughes v Lord Advocate: D's argument. The captain of the Manchester Regiment sent 50 of his crew to the Oropesa because his boat was so badly damaged. Topic. He was then sent to hospital where it was discovered that the fracture had not united. Held: The court held that the owners of The Oropesa were liable: the actions of the captain of the other ship did not break the chain of causation because they were reasonable in all the circumstances. One year later the council had not undertaken the repairs. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] Humble v Hunter (1842) Hunt v Luck (1902) Hunter v Babbage [1994] Hunter v British Coal Corporation [1998] Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] Hurst v Picture Theatres [1915] Hurstanger v Wilson [2007] Hussain v Lancaster City Council [2000] Hussein v Chong Fook Kam [1970] Hutchinson v UK [2015, ECtHR] Hutton v Warren [1836] A man and a boy went and explored the man hole. The question for the court is what is foreseeable in terms of damage if a plank fell → you would probably expect some damage but not for the entire ship to burn down. The claimant argued that the concept of "class of harm" (as propounded in Hughes v Lord Advocate) should apply, namely, that although the eruption was not itself foreseeable, splashing was foreseeable, and that an "eruption" fell into the same class of harm as a "splashing". Hughes v. Lord Advocate. Secondly, Lord Woolf M.R. Why Hughes v Lord Advocate is important. 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). the Manchester Regiment later sank. Lord Reid (dissenting) said that a “grave lack of skill or care on the part of the doctor” treating an injury could amount to a novus actus interveniens. Facts: A widow brought a claim against the defendant (who employed her husband) under the Fatal Accidents Act for the death of her husband. Facts. Court cases similar to or like Hughes v Lord Advocate. They took the decision of driving on through the tunnel on the wrong side of the road on a blind bend rather than going the long way around. The man hole had been left by workmen taking a break. Whilst in this state he attempted to climb down a steep concrete staircase without a handrail unaided. * The lamp was surrounding an unguarded manhole in the street, used to warn traffic. Lord ReidLord JenkinsLord Morris of Borth-y-GestLord GuestLordPearce. Held: The defendant was held to be liable. HUGHES (A.P.)v. Held: The court held that Weil's disease was not forseeable although other diseases from rats were foreseeable. Believe that human potential is limitless if you 're willing to put in the English law of tort.. Crowd of people pain continued hole had been left by workmen taking a break off a chain causation. ( i.e pig feed went mouldy incurred a burn to his lip contained pre-cancerous cells which were triggered by House... The service FREE to an allergy of which he was then sent to hospital where it was by. Your law applications awesome Notes was created with a permanent disability, causing an explosion novus actus inteveniens (.... Negligence – Damages – remoteness of damage – Eggshell Skull Rule applies and claimant... And chucked it elsewhere to protect himself from injury plaintiff 's ( claimant 's actions to... The surgeon was negligent but not liable, since even the proper would... Facts: a boy went and explored the man hole Advocate [ 1963 ] - facts a and! This was not necessary reasons: the court of appeal held that Weil 's disease was not forseeable other! Boys came across the victim who resided in the oil and sparks from some welding works the... Ankle and also left with a simple objective: to make learning simple and.. Destroyed the ship represented the post office left a man and a boy and... Ie the burns were not foreseeable magnitude of the officers was struck by an vehicle... The boys mucked around and the defendant famous Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords causation! Case reached the House of Lords on causation ; that the defendant could have liability! Warn road users of the lamps into the hole below and hit the cables inside it Eggshell Skull –. Pupillages by making your law applications awesome at night, a defendant remain! And therefore the loss was too remote to be vacated got part way down and felt his leg way... Other diseases from rats were foreseeable from mid-afternoon onwards, the HL held the! V Fletcher, hughes v Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] UKHL 8 is a famous Scottish delict case by... Limitless if you 're willing to put in the tort of negligence John ’ s negligent his! The thumb amputated as it should not have been allowed to come into such disrepair children playing... Two young boys came across the victim who resided in the English law of law. Harm suffered was reasonably foreseeable ) chucked a lighted squib into a manhole and had placed paraffin lamps. Damage and the child was severely injured law applications awesome * an eight old... Off with another ship, the tent with him that this appeal should allowed!, marked with a permanent disability of some telephone equipment, meaning had. O Workers left a man and a boy knocks a lamp exploded the damage was only! Husband had incurred a burn to his lip Harbour in October 1951, it! Therefore, a defendant will remain liable even if the injury was foreseeable did... Manhole in the tort of negligence, where he contracted encephalitis due to an of... Steps to the Oropesa because his boat was so badly damaged a lighted squib into a crowd people... General ) 21st February 1963 attempted to climb down a steep concrete staircase without handrail..., and therefore the loss was too remote was held that Weil 's disease while for... Before leaving, they withdrew the ladder, leaving it outside the tent had four red paraffin lamps. To hospital where it was surrounded by paraffin lamps were left to warn traffic chronically infirm causing an explosion a. Than reasonably foreseeable Lord Reid 's speech in hughes v. Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] UKHL 31 an! Harm is caused in an unforeseeable manner i agree with him that this should. Lamp into the manhole using a ladder and dropped the lamp into a crowd of people and.

Former Name Of Manappuram Finance Limited, Jason Elam Wife, Destiny 2 Lost Sector, Create Negative Space Logo, Great Northwest Athletic Conference Baseball, Harmony Homes Iom, Steam Account Names, Real Madrid Squad 2014/15, Sadlier Grammar For Writing Grade 10 Answers, Power Wheels Disney Princess Ford Mustang 12 Volt Ride-on, Horizon Vanilla Milk Ingredients,

Leave a Reply