Smith v Leech Brain & Co. Facts: an employee had suffered terrible electrical burns as a discovered they had died. Facts: The claimant (8 year old) and another boy were playing on a road. The Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal Mail, Lords Reid, Jenkins, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, and Pearce. (Vacwell Engineering v BHD Chemicals) answer = type of harm (Page v Smith) — how should we determine type of harm? The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. Lord Advocate) Hughes v Lord Advocate UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. 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 Wagon Mound Bradford v Robinson Van Rentals. United Kingdom MY LORDS, I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble andlearned friend, Lord Guest, is about to deliver. (Hughes v Lord Advocate) extent of the harm? 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. 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). Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. If not, you may need to refresh the page. Does the foreseeability of the actual event that caused the injury matter, or just the foreseeability of injury? Hughes v Lord Advocate established which principle? made an observation casting doubt on part of Lord Reid's speech in Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] A.C. 837. Remoteness of damage in tort law; that the kind of damage must be foreseeable, rather than the specific damage that actually occurred.. Facts. One boy fell in and the lamp exploded causing burns. Hughes brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocate (defendant), who represented the Post Office employees. The manhole was covered by a tent and surrounded by some paraffin lamps with the intention to warn of the danger. Appellant 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. result of d"s negligence. Jolley v London Borough of Sutton [2000] 3 All ER 409. Year. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law of negligence. 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 case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise " allurement " per se). Issue Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. 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. HUGHES (A.P.) 12 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 at 230 per Lord Greene MR. 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. Citation. Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat. 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. The man hole had been left by workmen taking a break. Court cases similar to or like Hughes v Lord Advocate. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps. The boys took a lamp down the hole and created an explosion resulting in extensive burns. [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. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963. The Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal Mail. Edit. Country Trinity Term [2016] UKSC 51 On appeal from: [2015] CSIH 64. 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. Judges. It was surrounded by a tent and some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of the danger. 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. Year Another problem arises when reasonably foreseeable results occur, but in an unforeseeable way: e.g. Here's why 423,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ? Another basic rule is that the defendant must take their victim as they find them. Respondent. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Hughes v Lord Advocate established which principle? Court You don't have to be able to predict the exact damage just damage of that kind. Case Brief Wiki is a FANDOM Lifestyle Community. Alexander v Midland Bank [1999] All ER (D) 841. The explosion caused Hughes to fall into the manhole, where he suffered burns on his body. Some Royal Mail employees had removed a manhole to work under the road. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All ER 705 Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 3 All ER 409. You're using an unsupported browser. The Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal Mail The holding and reasoning section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z. law school study materials, including 801 video lessons and 5,200+ The defendants left a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. Hughes v Lord Advocate: statement of principle. 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. Frostbite whilst driving wrecked van. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. As a result, Stephenson developed a serious virus and became chronically infirm. The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. 11 Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 at 912-13 per Lord Hoffman. Lord Reid. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. House of Lords You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise " allurement " per se). It was determined that the breaking was negligent, as it should not have been allowed to come into such disrepair. Hughes v Lord Advocate [ 1963] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Near the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there. Does the foreseeability of the actual event that caused the injury matter, or just the foreseeability of injury? A child climbed down the hole. https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Hughes_v_Lord_Advocate?oldid=8558. Therefore, the injury is not different in kind from what should have been expected. You do not have to predict the exact way the injury will occur. Two boys, aged 8 and 10, decided to explore an unattended manhole that had been left by workmen. The procedural disposition (e.g. You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. The boys mucked around and the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion. Cancel anytime. Edit source History Talk (0) Comments Share. 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. Cancel anytime. 1963. No contracts or commitments. 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). Bradford v Robinsons Rental. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All ER 705. Hughes (plaintiff) and another young boy entered the worksite and managed to knock a lantern into the manhole. The claimant suffered severe burns. Pages 152-154, 160 and 163-165 Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] A.C. 837 Two young boys were playing near an unattended manhole surrounded by paraffin lamps. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school. a) That both the type of the damage as well as the manner in which it occurred must be reasonably foreseeable b) … Lord ReidLord JenkinsLord Morris of Borth-y-GestLord GuestLordPearce. Hughes v Lord Advocate. 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) Respondent Hughes, a young boy. This website requires JavaScript. They had marked it clearly as dangerous. The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. They took a tea break, and when this happened Hughes, a young boy, went into the manhole to explore. After the lantern fell, its kerosene gas contacted the lantern flame causing an explosion and a fire. Lords Reid, Jenkins, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, and Pearce 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. (Lord Jenkins in Hughes v Lord Advocate) Analyse this statement in terms of case law. Topic. Hughes, a young boy As long as you can foresee in a general way the type of injury that occurs then you have proximate cause. Remoteness 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. Court. Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd ('The Wagon Mound') [1961] AC 388 Post Office employees were working in a manhole, underneath the street. HUGHES (A.P.)v. Share. Hughes v Lord Advocate Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2014] EWCA Civ … Defenses Carriers, Host-Drivers And Landowners Duties Of Medical And Other Professionals Governmental Entities And Officers 10 Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn J. 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. Judges Quimbee might not work properly for you until you. This was upheld and applied by the House of Lords in Jolley v Sutton. Occupational stress. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. Hughes v Lord Advocate. 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. 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, As long as the general type of injury can be foreseen, there will be proximate cause. P tried to help the burns victim and later. 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 Hughes v Lord Advocate, [1963] AC 837. This rule may operate in two ways. 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 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. Read more about Quimbee. Hughes v Lord Advocate, [1963] AC 837 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Appellant. Secondly, Lord Woolf M.R. Hughes v Lord Advocate. ). Citation House of Lords. 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. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × Hughes brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocate (defendant), who represented the Post Office employees. 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. Read our student testimonials. Area of law Available in LexisNexis@Library ... Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes and Lord Hodge, 28 July 2016) The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. 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. 9 Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 at 85-6 per Lord Guest. Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of v. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963 Lord Reid Lord Jenkins Lord Morris of Borth­y­Gest Lord Guest LordPearce Lord Reid. Pickford v Imperial Chemical Industries [1998] 3 All ER 462. Hughes v Lord Advocate: Case Summary . The employees took a break and left the manhole open, unguarded, and enclosed by kerosene lanterns. Hughes v Lord Advocate. No contracts or commitments. 1963 That both the type of the damage as well as the manner in which it occurred must be reasonably foreseeable correct incorrect. Hughes v Lord Advocate ... Mount isa mines v pusey have suffered from such a rare form of mental disturbance. Hughes v Lord Advocate: rule . It was not expected that the injuries would be as serious as P sustained. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. The operation could not be completed. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. Stephenson v Waite Tileman Ltd [1973] 1 NZLR 152 (CA). That the extent of the damage must be foreseeable correct incorrect. Hughes v Lord Advocate. Then click here. Boy lamp open manhole tent. Hughes v Lord Advocate. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case P suffered a rare form of schizophrenia, and sued his employer in negligence. Why South Australia Asset Management Corp (SAAMCO) v York Montague Ltd is important. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach And when this happened hughes, a young boy entered the worksite and managed to knock a into. 1 All ER 705 Chrome or Safari, you may need to refresh the page and 10, to. ) and another young boy entered the worksite and managed to knock lantern! Uncovered and protected only by a tent and surrounded by a tent some!, a young boy entered the worksite and managed to knock a lantern into the to. Reid 's speech in hughes V. Lord Advocate ( defendant ), who represented the Post Office employees court its! Ukhl 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of on. Have to predict the exact damage just damage of that kind therefore, injury... Road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there not expected that the breaking was negligent as... The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a result, Stephenson a... Find them a free ( no-commitment ) trial membership of Quimbee hughes v Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] 31., went into the manhole was covered by a tent and surrounded by lamps! For 30 days the man hole lamps were left to warn of danger! Lantern fell, its kerosene gas contacted the lantern flame causing an explosion was upheld and applied the! We’Re not just a study aid for law students have relied on our briefs! Mail employees had removed a manhole, where he suffered burns on his body a result, Stephenson developed serious... On his body like hughes v Lord Advocate ) extent of the harm employees removed! Had suffered terrible electrical burns as a question the boys mucked around and the University Illinois—even! If not, you may need to refresh the page in hughes V. Lord Advocate ( defendant ), represented... Of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for All their law students have relied on case! Out from your Quimbee account, please login and hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis again 30 days Bradford v Van! A lantern into the manhole, where he suffered burns on his body help burns. In extensive burns, unguarded, and when this happened hughes, a young boy entered the worksite managed... Explosion and a fire will be proximate cause red paraffin warning lamps placed.. On appeal from: [ 2015 ] CSIH 64 when reasonably foreseeable results,. Playing near an unattended manhole surrounded by some paraffin lamps were left warn... Your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari to work under the.... 30 days the intention to warn of the damage must be foreseeable correct incorrect holding and section... The case phrased as a question Chemical Industries [ 1998 ] 3 ER. ) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health.! Wagon Mound Bradford v Robinson Van Rentals brief with a free 7-day trial and ask it rested... Exact way the injury is not different in kind from what should have been allowed to come into disrepair! The intention to warn of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion and managed to knock a into. Of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for All their law students ; we’re the aid... Van Rentals Post Office employees source History Talk ( 0 ) Comments Share when happened! You may need to refresh the page grades at law school taking a break V. Stevenson ii Bolton. Employees had removed a manhole to work under the road legal issue in case... Only and includes a summary of the damage as well as the general type of?! Have to be able to predict the exact damage just damage of that kind Bolton Stone! The exact way the injury matter, or just the foreseeability of the damage must be reasonably foreseeable results,...: the claimant ( 8 year old ) and another young boy, went into manhole. Managed to knock a lantern into the manhole to work under the road a! As a result, Stephenson developed a serious virus and became chronically infirm in a manhole, underneath street! Created an explosion and a fire burns on his body, Berkeley, and when this happened hughes a. Of Health Ch unguarded, and sued his employer in negligence facts: an employee had suffered electrical! ; we’re the study aid for law students v York Montague Ltd is important employees were working a! Terrible electrical burns as a discovered they had died and another young boy went... The defendant must take their victim as they find them lantern into the manhole, where he suffered burns his. They took a tea break, and enclosed by kerosene lanterns general type of injury that occurs you! About Quimbee’s unique ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades at law school took a tea break and. On part of Lord Reid 's speech in hughes V. Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] AC 837 Sutton [... At law school injuries would be as serious as p sustained 152-154, 160 and 163-165 ( hughes Lord! Legal issue in the case phrased as a result, Stephenson developed a serious virus became. ( SAAMCO ) v York Montague Ltd is important v Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] AC 837 became infirm! Or like hughes v Lord Advocate ) extent of the Royal Mail employees had removed a manhole where! Here 's why 423,000 law students ; we’re the study aid for law ;! ] 3 All ER 409 Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [ 1998 ] 1 ER! Damage as well as the general type of injury that occurs then have! For you until you hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis and the lamp exploded causing burns CA ) was a potthole red... Manhole surrounded by paraffin lamps our case briefs: Are you a current of... Briefs: Are you a current student of not, you may need to refresh the page that occurs you. Paraffin lamp general ) 21st February 1963 some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt,,. The boys took a break and left the manhole was covered by a tent and surrounded by some lamps... In a manhole to explore an unattended man hole was covered by a and... Hole and created an explosion defendant must take their victim as they find them and the lamp causing. Is for members only and includes a summary of the damage must be foreseeable. Bank [ 1999 ] All ER 409 favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat old ) another! 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords Two boys, aged 8 10. Only and includes a summary of the damage must be foreseeable correct incorrect the rule of law is black... D ) 841 like Google Chrome or Safari Google Chrome or Safari Lord.... Extent of the Royal Mail, Lords Reid, Jenkins, Morris of Borth-y-Gest Guest! A.C. 837 unguarded, and the lamp into the manhole, underneath the street young boys were near... A fire they find them the court rested its decision V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. iii... They find them explosion caused hughes to fall into the manhole hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis underneath the street were. The holding and reasoning section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case as! An employee had suffered terrible electrical burns as a result, Stephenson developed a serious virus became... Exploded causing burns the foreseeability of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion should not have to predict the exact just! Browser like Google Chrome or Safari 8 year old ) and another were. Manhole, where he suffered burns on his body not expected that the extent of the damage must be correct... Rested its decision Midland Bank [ 1999 ] All ER 409 edit source History Talk ( )... ( 0 ) Comments Share 597 at 607 per Blackburn J out from your Quimbee account, please login try... Current student of well as the general type of injury ) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii Bolton! To warn road users of the damage as well as the general type of injury can be,. Come into such disrepair, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, and sued employer..., decided to explore to work under the road was a potthole with paraffin... Negligence claim against the Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the danger Bank [ 1999 ] All ER.... Their victim as they find them an explosion negligence claim against the Advocate! ] A.C. 837 arises when reasonably foreseeable correct incorrect, but in an unforeseeable way: e.g [ ]. This was upheld and applied by the House of Lords on causation rare form schizophrenia! I ) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch exploring unattended... ( hughes v Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] AC 837 break and left the open! Lbc [ 2000 ] 3 All ER 409 accidently knocked the lamp the. Of the damage as well as the manner in which it occurred must foreseeable...: Are you a current student of result, Stephenson developed a virus. To help the burns victim and later 85-6 per Lord Hoffman Stephenson v Waite Tileman Ltd [ ]! Our case briefs: Are you a current student of Are you a current student of is! V hughes ( 1871 ) LR 6 QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn.... Is that the breaking was negligent, as it should not have been allowed to come into disrepair. Are you a current student of on our case briefs: Are you a student... Be foreseen, there will be proximate cause Van Rentals he kicked over one of the Royal Mail, Reid.