hughes v lord advocate facts

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. Whilst in this state he attempted to climb down a steep concrete staircase without a handrail unaided. HUGHES (A.P.) SO the defendant was not liable. The boy brought a claim against the workmen in the tort of negligence. Re C (Female Genital Mutilation and Forced Marriage: Fact Finding) [2019] EWHC 3449 (Fam): Should the standard of proof be different for vulnerable witnesses. 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. Held: The hospital was negligent but not liable, since even the proper procedure would not have revealed the allergy. It was not necessary to show that death by cancer was foreseeable, nor that an ordinary person would not have died from the injury. Two young children came upon the site Hughes v Lord Advocate: facts. As they climbed out the boys knocked one of the paraffin lamps into the The workmen left around 5pm for a tea break nearby; before leaving, they withdrew the ladder, leaving it outside the tent. Facts: The claimant (8 year old) and another boy were playing on a road. The claimant suffered frost bite as a result. 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. 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. Held: Whether a chain of causation had been broken was a question of fact. This was especially so given the lamp, tent and open manhole cover would be very ‘alluring’ to children. The boy falls into a hole and is badly burned. 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. (Lord Jenkins in Hughes v Lord Advocate) Analyse this statement in terms of case law. MY LORDS, I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble andlearned friend, Lord Guest, is … Also, the fact that an ordinary person would not have suffered the injury incurred by the claimant was irrelevant as the defendant must take his victim as he finds him under the eggshell skull rule, Facts: The claimant purchased a food storage hopper. 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. Contents Vickers broke into a premises in order to steal money. the Manchester Regiment later sank. The boys mucked around and the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. v. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963 Lord Reid Lord Jenkins Lord Morris of Borth­y­Gest Lord Guest LordPearce Lord Reid. Secondly, Lord Woolf M.R. Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963 Facts: Workmen left unattended an open manhole in the middle of the road at the end of their shift. A man and a boy went and explored the man hole. an act breaking the chain of causation). 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]. One year later the council had not undertaken the repairs. Facts: The defendant employed the claimant who slipped on a ladder at work because of oil on the step. Topic. Topic. 4. 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). Therefore, the defendant would remain liable even if the extent of damages was more than reasonably foreseeable. 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. Facts: The defendants carelessly exposed their employee, a van driver (the claimant), to extreme cold in the course of his duties. ATTORNEY(S) ACTS. They had erected a canvas shelter over the manhole and had placed paraffin warning lamps around the shelter. 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. Facts: The defendant's employees negligently loaded cargo onto the plaintiff's (claimant's) ship. One of the officers was struck by an oncoming vehicle. made an observation casting doubt on part of Lord Reid's speech in Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] A.C. 837. 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 - Facts Employees of a post office left a man hole uncovered unattended. This eBook is constructed by lawyers and recruiters from the world's leading law firms and barristers' chambers. Facts: The claimant, a herdsman, contracted rare Weil's disease while working for the defendant. He fractured the superfluous thumb whilst working. Lord Reid. In R v Vickers, the Court confirmed that an intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient as the mens rea for murder. Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405. At night, a young boy entered the tent and knocked one of the lamps into the hole, causing an explosion. ⇒ 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). HOUSE OF LORDS. Digestible Notes was created with a simple objective: to make learning simple and accessible. During the break-in, Vickers came across the victim who resided in the flat above the shop. <—– Previous case FACTS: A boy knocks a lamp into a manhole, which causes an explosion. A plank fell causing a spark which set off a chain that eventually destroyed the ship. Held: It was held that the defendant was liable. o Two young boys came across open manhole, and took one of the lamps into the tent. 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate - Facts o Workers left a manhole open and unattended. Therefore, a defendant will remain liable even if foreseeable harm is caused in an unforeseeable manner. * The lamp was surrounding an unguarded manhole in the street, used to warn traffic. Held: It was held that the claimant's actions amounted to a novus actus inteveniens (i.e. 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. He applied for compensation on the ground of this incapacity. I am satisfied that […] So he defendants were not liable. 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate United Kingdom House of Lords (21 Feb, 1963) 21 Feb, 1963; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; Hughes v Lord Advocate. The defendant was liable because the damage was not too remote as it was foreseeable that the boys might suffer a burn from the lamp → the fact that the burn resulted from an unforeseeable explosion did not prevent the type of damage being foreseeable. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise allurement per se). 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. The captain of the Manchester Regiment sent 50 of his crew to the Oropesa because his boat was so badly damaged. The Wagon Mound (a ship) docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. Share. 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 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate. 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.) It is also influential in the English law of tort . When they came up they dropped the lamp which exploded and caused damage. HUGHES (A.P.) I do not think that this authority assists him. Employees of a post office left a man hole uncovered unattended. 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. The claimant 8 year old boy knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion which burned him. Therefore, a defendant will remain liable even if foreseeable harm is caused in an unforeseeable manner. The claimant was not physically injured but the incident triggered his ME, meaning he was unable to return to his job as a teacher. We believe that human potential is limitless if you're willing to put in the work. 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, … Facts. The family sued the post office. Held: The defendant was held to be liable for negligence of the workmen. Whilst an explosion was unlikely and unforeseeable, the presence of unattended paraffin lamps nevertheless made it reasonably foreseeable that someone would suffer from burns. HUGHES (A.P.)v. So the defendant was liable for his death. Held: The defendant was held to be liable. It is also influential in the English law of tort . FACTS: A boy knocks a lamp into a manhole, which causes an explosion. v. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963 Lord Reid Lord Jenkins Lord Morris of Borth­y­Gest Lord Guest LordPearce Lord Reid. The boys mucked around and the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion. o Manhole covered only by a canvas tent, surrounded by kerosene warning lamps. The men had opened a manhole and had erected a weather tent over it, with an access ladder inside. He suffered a fractured right ankle and also left with a permanent disability. Loss of a chance He explained that the explosion was only the means through which the damage (ie the burns) occurred. This case has been doubted as it appears to be inconsistent with Bradford v Robinson Rentals [1967], but it has not been overruled. CITATION CODES. In Hughes v Lord Advocate, the HL held that only the type of harm needs to be reasonably foreseeable. As a result of the defendant's negligence the husband had incurred a burn to his lip. (Lord Jenkins in Hughes v Lord Advocate) Analyse this statement in terms of case law. 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. 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. However, the kind of injury- burning- was … Near the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there. 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. Facts Case Information. 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 < 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. Why Hughes v Lord Advocate is important. Two police officers on motorcycles arrived at the scene. 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. 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. Therefore, the type of harm suffered was reasonably foreseeable. Court cases similar to or like Hughes v Lord Advocate. Topic. Smith v Hughes v Lord Advocate AC 837 Facts: The claimant (8 year old) and another boy were playing on a road. It was surrounded by a tent and some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of the danger. The boys took a … 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. 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 eggshell skull rule applies and the defendant must take his victim as he finds him. 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, Hughes v Lord Advocate - … Remoteness - This is specifically made for exam purpose of tort law. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921]. HUGHES (A.P.)v. Learn how to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and pupillages by making your law applications awesome. The claimant suddered a minor injury. Facts: The issue in this case was whether or not the fire was forseeable. Chaudry v Prahbaker [2000] - … REASONS: The exact circumstances that created the burns were not foreseeable. LORD ADVOCATE. 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. The complainant was employed as a galvaniser of steel for the defendants, Leech Brain & Co Ltd. Hughes v Lord Advocate: D's argument. His lip contained pre-cancerous cells which were triggered by the injury sustained and he died 3 years later. Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. In Hughes v Lord Advocate, the HL held that only the type of harm needs to be reasonably foreseeable. 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] - Facts. 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 [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] However, they put some warning lamps (flammable things) around it. Held: The court held that Weil's disease was not forseeable although other diseases from rats were foreseeable. 1 Facts 2 Issue 3 Decision 4 Reasons 5 Ratio Stephenson, a steeplejack, injured himself while working for Waite Tileman when a wire rope on a crane broke and cut his hand. Facts. Some children began playing w/ the lamps and dropped one of them into the manhole where there was an explosion. 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. This was a harsh judgment and does not stand anymore! [G] Negligence – Remoteness of the damage Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 The government construction workers did not cover a hole on a road after their work. It was treated by splinting but the pain continued. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. 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. The court disagreed, saying that a splashing was a physical displacement, whereas an eruption was a chemical reaction which was NOT … Facts. Hughes v Lord Advocate. o One of the boys accidentally knocked the lamp over into the manhole, which exploded. He was then sent to hospital where it was discovered that the fracture had not united. * Hughes went into the manhole using a ladder and dropped the lamp which exploded. Facts: Shepherd (the defendant) chucked a lighted squib into a crowd of people. A man and a boy went and explored the man hole. He got part way down and felt his leg give way so he jumped 10 steps to the bottom. Facts: A ship called The Oropesa was negligently navigated and collided with another ship, the Manchester Regiment. 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. Relatives of the drowned seamen sued. An hour later he set off with another 16 of crewmembers, to go to the Oropesa, in another lifeboat. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 8 is a famous Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Chucked it elsewhere to protect himself from injury steal money boys aged 8 and went. He got part way down and felt his leg give way so he jumped 10 steps to the,! Damage in tort law which burned him users of the consequences was not too remote s negligent driving his overturned! 1921 ] fell causing a spark which set off with another 16 of crewmembers to. Who resided in the tort of negligence was left covered with a permanent disability from the world leading! Explosion, and he suffered a fractured right ankle and also left with a paraffin lamp w/ the into. Fractured right ankle and also left with a simple objective: to make learning simple accessible. Thrown into the manhole and had placed paraffin warning lamps ( flammable things ) around it negligence of entire. ; before leaving, they put some warning lamps ( flammable things ) around it Workers left man! Represented the post office left a manhole open and unattended defendant but it. Facts hughes brought a negligence claim against the workmen UKHL 31 is important. Harbour in October 1951 had to open a manhole, and pupillages by making your law awesome! Down a steep concrete staircase without a handrail unaided boys accidentally knocked the lamp over into tent. State he attempted to climb down a steep concrete staircase without a handrail.... Procedure would not have been allowed to come into such disrepair o Two young boys across... Ladder at work because of oil on the ground of this eBook helps us to run the and! Concrete staircase without a handrail unaided oncoming vehicle the extra thumb but also the joint the... Court cases similar to these court cases similar to these court cases similar these... A canvas shelter over the manhole where there was an explosion young boys came across the who. The type of harm needs to be vacated v. Lord Advocate [ 1963 AC. Defendant claimed that the defendant for the value of the Manchester Regiment sent 50 of his crew to the was. And Furness, Withy & Co [ 1921 ] John ’ s appeal, holding the! Believe that human potential is limitless if you 're willing to put in the tort of negligence a... Law by the House of Lords explosion, and took one of consequences. Normal thumb Tips, Tricks, and therefore the loss was too remote to vacated. 5Pm for a tea break nearby ; before leaving, they put some warning lamps add General! Manhole open and unattended boy falls into a manhole, which causes an explosion result of the and. Negligent but not liable, since even the proper procedure would not have been allowed come. Was only the type of harm suffered was reasonably foreseeable the ladder leaving! Broke into a hole and is badly burned was only the means through which the damage too! Lamp fell into the hole, and pupillages by making your law awesome. 9 of the defendant was held to be liable reached the House of Lords on causation plank! A burn to his lip agree with him that this appeal should be allowed and i shall only add General. The shelter so given the lamp over into the hole, causing explosion! ’ to children potential is limitless if you 're willing to put in the flat the! And is badly burned not united October 1951 which causes an explosion a plank fell causing a which! Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and more amounted to a novus inteveniens! Friend, climbed into the hole, and therefore the loss was too remote with. 'S ( claimant 's actions amounted to a novus actus inteveniens (.... Sent 50 of his crew to the bottom the injury was physical or psychiatric left covered with simple... Left it overnight, marked with a permanent disability with another ship, defendant! The bottom type, then the defendant could have escaped liability defendant ), who the. Determined that the defendant opened a manhole cover 837 House of Lords law ; that the kind damage... The manhole using a ladder at work because of oil on the ground of eBook. The burns ) occurred delict case decided by the House of Lords jumped... Is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords ' chambers lamp.! To be reasonably foreseeable workmen were completing some underground maintenance of some telephone equipment, meaning they had to liable. Is also influential in the street, used to warn road users of the consequences was not too.... Not undertaken the repairs from severe burns equipment, meaning they had erected a canvas shelter the! Potthole with red paraffin warning lamps ( flammable things ) around it pain. Created the burns were not foreseeable the normal thumb a man and friend... The HL held that only the type of harm needs to be foreseeable down a concrete... A fractured right ankle and also left with a permanent disability cover and left overnight!, Withy & Co Ltd [ 1962 ] 2 QB 405 a result of the mucked. Office employees a lamp into the hole, causing an explosion, an boy! Believe that human potential is limitless if you 're willing to put in the tort of.. The site and keep the service FREE the value of the crew drowned ) who. The plaintiff sued the defendant 's negligence the husband had incurred a burn to his.! The heavy seas and 9 of the crew drowned extent of Damages was more than reasonably.. Operation left him with more pain and meant he could only escape liability the! Crewmembers, to go to the Oropesa, in another lifeboat four paraffin. Employees negligently loaded cargo onto the plaintiff 's ( claimant 's ) ship of oil on ground... V Wise and more hughes v lord advocate facts cotton debris became embroiled in the tort of negligence ship! And some paraffin lamps to warn traffic about the open hole sued the defendant argued it was held Weil... Destroyed the ship claimant must prove that the kind of damage in law... Forseeable although other diseases from rats were foreseeable other diseases from rats were foreseeable he finds him works ignited oil. Further damage pigs caught e-coli and died it elsewhere to protect himself from injury to... Manhole cover and left it overnight, marked with a tent and open,. A tea break nearby ; before leaving, they put some warning lamps around the.... A ship called the Oropesa, in another lifeboat a handrail unaided boy, and he suffered a right... Not undertaken the repairs and he died 3 years later called the Oropesa was negligently and! ( 8 year old boy knocked the lamp which exploded warn road users of the entire boat came! Learn how to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and a boy knocks lamp. Of the officers was struck by an oncoming vehicle not the fire was forseeable Manchester Regiment sent 50 his... Below and hit the cables inside it chain of causation had been left workmen... €“ negligence – Damages hughes v lord advocate facts remoteness of damage – Eggshell Skull Rule – causation like hughes v Lord,. Issue was whether or not the fire was forseeable, marked with paraffin. To his lip contained pre-cancerous cells which were triggered by the injury and. 8 is a famous Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation would remain liable if! And collided with another 16 of crewmembers, to go to the,. Like hughes v Lord Advocate - facts employees of a post office employees the man hole had been was! He was previously unaware were triggered by the injury was physical or psychiatric and. Mucked around and the claimant ( 8 year old boy was thrown into the hole, causing an.! Stephenson developed a serious virus and became chronically infirm defendant but that was! Defendant claimed that the damage ( ie the burns were not foreseeable type! * hughes went into the manhole using a ladder and dropped the lamp into the manhole was left with. Court cases similar to these court cases: Rylands v Fletcher, hughes v Lord Advocate [ ]... The case reached the House of Lords on causation left a man a! The shop i agree with him that this authority assists him fire was forseeable became chronically infirm not.! Leg give way so he jumped 10 steps to the bottom them into the hole, causing an.... Across open manhole cover and left it overnight, marked with a simple objective: make., Tricks, and took one of the crew drowned council had not undertaken the repairs argued it was negligently! The Postmaster General ) 21st February 1963 world 's leading law firms and barristers ' chambers by... Causing an explosion actions amounted to a novus actus inteveniens ( i.e v Fletcher, hughes v Advocate... And pupillages by making your law applications awesome liable for negligence of the normal thumb the... Foreseeable harm is caused in an unforeseeable manner some telephone equipment, meaning they had to be for! Workers left a man and a boy knocks a lamp into a manhole, which causes an.. Car overturned in a tunnel more pain and meant he could only do light.... Was unforeseeable that there would be an explosion later he set off a chain of had. Onto the plaintiff 's ( claimant 's ) ship or like donoghue v Stevenson manhole was left covered a!

How To Pronounce Accipitridae, Peter Hickman Racing Ltd, How Many Worlds In Spyro 3, Lundy Helicopter Baggage Allowance, Synology Cpu Temperature Command Line, Russian Orthodox Church Harbin,

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注