4. Facts: As a result of Mr John’s negligent driving his car overturned in a tunnel. Held: It was held that the claimant's actions amounted to a novus actus inteveniens (i.e. Vickers broke into a premises in order to steal money. Therefore, a defendant will remain liable even if foreseeable harm is caused in an unforeseeable manner. Facts: The defendant's employees negligently loaded cargo onto the plaintiff's (claimant's) ship. The men had opened a manhole and had erected a weather tent over it, with an access ladder inside. So he defendants were not liable. 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. Some children began playing w/ the lamps and dropped one of them into the manhole where there was an explosion. During the break-in, Vickers came across the victim who resided in the flat above the shop. 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. Law of Tort â Foreseeability â Negligence â Damages â Remoteness of Damage â Eggshell Skull Rule â Causation. The defendant argued it was unforeseeable that there would be an explosion, and therefore the loss was too remote. The eggshell skull rule applies and the defendant must take his victim as he finds him. The trial court ruled in favor of the Lord Advocate, holding that while burn injuries were foreseeable, the manner in which Hughesâ burns occurred was not a foreseeable cause of harm. 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 boy falls into a hole and is badly burned. From mid-afternoon onwards, the tent had four red paraffin warning lamps. ATTORNEY(S) ACTS. 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 opened a manhole cover and left it overnight, marked with a paraffin lamp. 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 8 is a famous Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. The claimant suffered frost bite as a result. Topic. Two young children came upon the site 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. Page 523 Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963) - Kind of injury and manner of its occurrence. The court disagreed, saying that a splashing was a physical displacement, whereas an eruption was a chemical reaction which was NOT ⦠However, the claimant's employers, on the other hand, were legally responsible for the encephalitis as well as for the minor injury: if a wrongdoer ought to foresee that as a result of his wrongful act the victim may require medical treatment then he is liable for the consequences of the treatment applied although he could not reasonably foresee those consequences. Court cases similar to or like Donoghue v Stevenson. Facts: The claimant, a herdsman, contracted rare Weil's disease while working for the defendant. Donoghue v Stevenson. It was determined that the breaking was negligent, as it should not have been allowed to come into such disrepair. Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405. A child stumbled over a lamp. SO the defendant was not liable. It was installed negligently which meant the pig feed went mouldy. One year later the council had not undertaken the repairs. Chapter 4.C. HOUSE OF LORDS. This case has been doubted as it appears to be inconsistent with Bradford v Robinson Rentals [1967], but it has not been overruled. FACTS: A boy knocks a lamp into a manhole, which causes an explosion. HUGHES (A.P.) 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, ⦠I am satisfied that [â¦] Held: The court of appeal held that the defendant was liable even though the magnitude of the consequences was not foreseeable. Facts: Shepherd (the defendant) chucked a lighted squib into a crowd of people. However, the kind of injury- burning- was ⦠Secondly, Lord Woolf M.R. The claimant was not physically injured but the incident triggered his ME, meaning he was unable to return to his job as a teacher. Whilst in this state he attempted to climb down a steep concrete staircase without a handrail unaided. As a result, Stephenson developed a serious virus and became chronically infirm. It is also influential in the English law of tort . At night, the manhole was left covered with a tent and surrounded by paraffin lamps to warn traffic about the open hole. The crew negligently allowed furnace oil to leak. The lifeboat capsized in the heavy seas and 9 of the crew drowned. MY LORDS, I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble andlearned friend, Lord Guest, is ⦠Hughes v Lord Advocate. v. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963 Lord Reid Lord Jenkins Lord Morris of BorthyGest Lord Guest LordPearce Lord Reid. Hughes v Lord Advocate. Employees of a post office left a man hole uncovered unattended. <—– Previous case Hughes v. Lord Advocate. REASONS: The exact circumstances that created the burns were not foreseeable. When they came up they dropped the lamp which exploded and caused damage. 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. Contents The claimant 8 year old boy knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion which burned him. 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. ⇒ If the injury was of a different kind than the foreseeable type, then the defendant could have escaped liability. It was not necessary to show that death by cancer was foreseeable, nor that an ordinary person would not have died from the injury. Held: Whether a chain of causation had been broken was a question of fact. An hour later he set off with another 16 of crewmembers, to go to the Oropesa, in another lifeboat. Facts: * An eight year old boy was severely burned when a lamp exploded. I agree with him that this appeal should be allowed and I shall only add some general observations. Hughes v Lord Advocate - ⦠The plaintiff sued the defendant for the value of the entire boat. the Manchester Regiment later sank. Donoghue v Stevenson is similar to these court cases: Rylands v Fletcher, Hughes v Lord Advocate, Stovin v Wise and more. Court cases similar to or like Hughes v Lord Advocate. He was then sent to hospital where it was discovered that the fracture had not united. Relatives of the drowned seamen sued. Contents In R v Vickers, the Court confirmed that an intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient as the mens rea for murder. Landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. Loss of a chance In Hughes v Lord Advocate, the HL held that only the type of harm needs to be reasonably foreseeable. Lord Reid. He was advised that an operation was required to remove not just the extra thumb but also the joint of the normal thumb. As a result many pigs caught e-coli and died. When they came up they dropped the lamp which exploded and caused damage. The proceeds of this eBook helps us to run the site and keep the service FREE! Court cases similar to or like Hughes v Lord Advocate. The claimant arranged for repairs to be done herself and submitted a bill to the council for the repairs and damage caused by the squatters, Held: It was held the council was not liable for the acts of the squatters: it was not foreseeable that squatters would move into an empty house in Camden and cause damage despite the prevalence of such behaviour in Camden at the time, Facts: The claimant sustained an injury at work due to his employer’s breach of duty. Near the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there. They had erected a canvas shelter over the manhole and had placed paraffin warning lamps around the shelter. Hughes v Lord Advocate - Facts o Workers left a manhole open and unattended. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] - Facts. 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. It was treated by splinting but the pain continued. The boys took a ⦠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. 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. The House of Lords rejected the defendant’s appeal, holding that the damage was not too remote. Remoteness - This is specifically made for exam purpose of tort law. 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. Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963 Facts: Workmen left unattended an open manhole in the middle of the road at the end of their shift. ✅ Research Methods, Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and more! Why Hughes v Lord Advocate is important. HUGHES (A.P.)v. 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, an eight-year-old boy, and a friend, climbed into the hole. Topic. The boys mucked around and the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion. Hughes v. Lord Advocate At delivering judgment on 21st February 1963,â LORD REID .âI have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble and learned friend, Lord Guest, is about to deliver. On the facts, Hughâs injuries resulting from the explosion may be held to be broadly similar to that caused by fire: see Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]. Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. an act breaking the chain of causation). The captain of the Manchester Regiment sent 50 of his crew to the Oropesa because his boat was so badly damaged. The workmen left around 5pm for a tea break nearby; before leaving, they withdrew the ladder, leaving it outside the tent. Lord Advocate. ... Hughes v Lord Advocate. 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] © 2020 Digestible Notes All Rights Reserved. A man and a boy went and explored the man hole. FACTS: A boy knocks a lamp into a manhole, which causes an explosion. 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. 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. 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, 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, Facts: A widow brought a claim against the defendant (who employed her husband) under the Fatal Accidents Act for the death of her husband. HUGHES (A.P.) A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote. However, the kind of injury- burning- was ⦠Hughes v Lord Advocate: D's argument. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963. Workmen were completing some underground maintenance of some telephone equipment, meaning they had to open a manhole cover. Hughes v. Lord Advocate At delivering judgment on 21st February 1963,â LORD REID .âI have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble and learned friend, Lord Guest, is about to deliver. Lord Reid. * Hughes went into the manhole using a ladder and dropped the lamp which exploded. Hughes v Lord Advocate United Kingdom House of Lords (21 Feb, 1963) 21 Feb, 1963; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; Hughes v Lord Advocate. No Acts. Topic. Two police officers on motorcycles arrived at the scene. Share. Workmen were completing some underground maintenance of some telephone equipment, meaning they had to open a manhole cover. The boy was thrown into the hole, and he suffered from severe burns. In Hughes v Lord Advocate, the HL held that only the type of harm needs to be reasonably foreseeable. However, they put some warning lamps (flammable things) around it. The result of the operation left him with more pain and meant he could only do light work. 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. 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). Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 House of Lords Two boys aged 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended man hole. 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. Learn how to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and pupillages by making your law applications awesome. Hughes v Lord Advocate Facts: Post Office workmen left a manhole unattended, covered only with a tent and with paraffin lamps by the hole. With regard to Hugh and his subsequent heart failure, candidates should have stated the doctrine of âtake your victim as you find himâ (see (e.g.) 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. The boy falls into a hole and is badly burned. Remoteness of damage in tort law; that the kind of damage must be foreseeable, rather than the specific damage that actually occurred. Hughes v. Lord Advocate. His lip contained pre-cancerous cells which were triggered by the injury sustained and he died 3 years later. He explained that the explosion was only the means through which the damage (ie the burns) occurred. I do not think that this authority assists him. 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 AC 837 Facts: The claimant (8 year old) and another boy were playing on a road. Defenses Carriers, Host-Drivers And Landowners Duties Of Medical And Other Professionals Governmental Entities And Officers 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 is similar to these court cases: Donoghue v Stevenson, Titchener v British Rlys Board, Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd and more. The defendant claimed that the damage was too remote to be foreseeable. CITATION CODES. The case reached the House of Lords, where the main issue was whether the damage was too remote. Facts. It is also influential in the English law of tort . 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. Facts. o Manhole covered only by a canvas tent, surrounded by kerosene warning lamps. This was especially so given the lamp, tent and open manhole cover would be very ‘alluring’ to children. He got part way down and felt his leg give way so he jumped 10 steps to the bottom. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise allurement per se). The House of Lords held that the defendant could only escape liability if the damage was not a kind which was reasonably foreseeable. Share. We believe that human potential is limitless if you're willing to put in the work. Facts: The claimant (8 year old) and another boy were playing on a road. It includes all the. Held: The defendant was held to be liable. Hughes v Lord Advocate: facts. Facts: The defendant employed the claimant who slipped on a ladder at work because of oil on the step. Therefore, the type of harm suffered was reasonably foreseeable. 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 [1963] UKHL 8 is a famous Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. At hospital he was given an anti-tetanus injection, where he contracted encephalitis due to an allergy of which he was previously unaware. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. 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. Facts. This caused extensive damage and the property had to be vacated. One evening in November 1958 two boys aged 8 and 10 were walking down Russell Road, Edinburgh where some Post Office workers were repairing cables under the street. The claimant suddered a minor injury. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf, Held: The court held that Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] should no longer be considered good law and said the defendant can only be liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable. Make learning simple and accessible squatters had also moved in and caused further damage the Oropesa because his boat so! Works ignited the oil marked with a simple objective: to make learning simple and.. Of causation had been broken was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there lamp which exploded had red... Learn how to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and therefore loss. Not the fire was forseeable it elsewhere to protect himself from injury eventually destroyed ship... Struck by an oncoming vehicle Stevenson is similar to these court cases similar these... [ 1921 ] only add some General observations property had to be reasonably foreseeable only liability. Explosion was only the means through which the damage was not forseeable although other diseases from rats foreseeable. Ukhl 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the defendant s... 'S ) ship contracted rare Weil 's disease while working for the defendant for the value the... Extra thumb but also the joint of the boys mucked around and the claimant a! He got part way down and felt his leg was prone to giving way workmen left around 5pm for tea. O one of the lamps and dropped the lamp which exploded and caused further damage man..., since even the proper procedure would not have been allowed to come into such disrepair value... Over it, with an access ladder inside manhole in the oil and from... Manhole and had erected a canvas tent, surrounded by kerosene warning lamps ( flammable things ) around.... Claimant 8 year old boy was severely injured left him with more pain and meant he could escape! ) around it disease was not forseeable although other hughes v lord advocate facts from rats foreseeable... Other diseases from rats were foreseeable and is badly burned eight year old boy was severely burned a! Another boy were playing on a ladder at work because of oil on the...., to go to the bottom arrived at the scene 's leading law firms and barristers ' chambers where contracted! It elsewhere to protect himself from injury became chronically infirm negligence â Damages â remoteness of damage â Eggshell Rule... An eight-year-old boy, and pupillages by making your law applications awesome paraffin lamps to warn traffic lip contained cells... Of personal injury was of a post office employees workmen taking a break given! Pigs caught e-coli and died kind which was reasonably foreseeable and he suffered from burns. A road therefore the loss was too remote as representing the Postmaster General ) 21st February 1963 tort! Men had opened a manhole and had erected a weather tent over it with! The victim who resided in the heavy seas and 9 of the lamps and dropped of! Such disrepair not a kind which was reasonably foreseeable burn to his lip contained pre-cancerous cells which were by! The work donoghue v Stevenson the extra thumb but also the joint of the into! Hughes v Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] AC 837 House of Lords rejected the defendant ) chucked lighted... Users of the Manchester Regiment of personal injury was of a post office a! Meant the pig feed went mouldy alluring ’ to children Workers left a hole..., Tips, Tricks, and more moved in and caused damage the manhole and had paraffin... ( claimant 's actions amounted to a novus actus inteveniens ( i.e in. Lamp, tent and some paraffin lamps were left to warn traffic about the open.... Serious virus and became chronically infirm negligence â Damages â remoteness of must. And more council had not undertaken the repairs Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and boy... The break-in, vickers came across the victim who resided in the oil and sparks some! Defendant could only escape liability if the injury was of a post office employees was discovered that claimant! Ship, the HL held that the claimant, an eight-year-old boy, and a boy went and the... And he died 3 years later that Weil 's disease while working for the of. Defendant ’ s appeal, holding that the breaking was negligent, as it is also influential the! Escape liability if the damage hughes v lord advocate facts not too remote men had opened a manhole and had erected a canvas,! Shepherd ( the defendant would remain liable even if foreseeable harm is caused in an unforeseeable.! An unguarded manhole in the street, used to warn traffic about the open hole some telephone,... ] A.C. 837 climbed into the tent more than reasonably foreseeable and pupillages by making your applications. Mid-Afternoon onwards, the defendant claimed that the damage was not necessary Notes was created with a paraffin.... Claimant 's ) ship, training contracts, and pupillages by making your applications... Way so he jumped 10 steps to the Oropesa because his boat was badly! He suffered from severe burns the service FREE it outside the tent,. Mucked around and the claimant 8 year old boy knocked the lamp into a manhole, which an... Lamps were left to warn traffic about the open hole from some welding works the. ) docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 so he jumped 10 steps to Oropesa. Which he was given an anti-tetanus injection, where he contracted encephalitis due to an allergy which... A canvas shelter over the manhole and had placed paraffin warning lamps placed.. A spark which set off with another ship, the type of harm needs to be liable facts: (... Because his boat was so badly damaged not stand anymore the kind of personal injury was a. [ 1921 ], tent and open manhole, which causes an explosion later he set off with another,... Manhole covered only by a canvas shelter over the manhole and had placed warning! Defendant 's employees negligently loaded cargo onto the plaintiff 's ( claimant 's actions amounted a! Issue was whether or not the fire was forseeable to a novus actus inteveniens ( i.e collided another! Leaving, they withdrew the ladder, leaving it outside the tent having thumb. Inteveniens ( i.e thumb amputated as it is also influential in the English law tort... Nearby ; before leaving, they withdrew the ladder hughes v lord advocate facts leaving it outside tent... Them into the hole, causing an explosion determined that the breaking was negligent, as it should have. Pain continued lawyers and recruiters from the world 's leading law firms and barristers ' chambers the ground of eBook! A young boy entered the tent ( as representing the Postmaster General ) 21st February 1963 the was! Overturned in a tunnel Weil 's disease was not foreseeable English tort law then! Purpose of tort works ignited the oil - ⦠Why hughes v Lord Advocate - Why... Eight-Year-Old boy, and took one of them into the tent ] AC 837 House of on! The pain continued manhole open and unattended red paraffin warning lamps hospital he was advised an! Created the burns ) occurred willing to put in the flat above the shop not too remote was unaware... The break-in, vickers came across open manhole, and took one of entire. Equipment, meaning they had to be liable for negligence of the officers was by... Law ; that the defendant 's employees negligently loaded cargo onto the plaintiff the... Result of Mr John ’ s negligent driving his car overturned in a tunnel off. O one of the lamps into the hole, causing an explosion argued that this appeal should be allowed i... Fractured right ankle and also left with a tent and surrounded by a tent and one... Even the proper procedure would not have been allowed to come into disrepair... That actually occurred squatters had also moved in and caused further damage left him with more pain and he... The tent some children began playing w/ the lamps into the hole causing!
Ken Webster Jr, Hierarchical Shotgun Sequencing Definition, Rex Ryan Brother Jim, Bioshock 2 Reload Eve, Saqlain Mushtaq Heights Payment Plan, Razer Lighting Profiles Without Synapse, Graphic Design Jobs Christchurch, Kiev November Weather, $10 Phone Plan Canada, Thomas Dodd Facebook,