Resin Measuring Cups, Shuffle Out Meaning, Boat Dealers Near Scranton, Pa, How To Draw Calaveras, Hip Hop Abs Level 2, Houses For Rent In Livonia, Mi Craigslist, Tannenbaum Tree Farm Centre Hall Pa, Robinson Rancheria Tribe, Specialized Levo Sl Comp Carbon 2021, Similar Books:Isaac and Izzy’s Tree HouseWhen God Made ColorAusten in Austin Volume 1A Closer Look at ... [Sarcastic] YA FictionA Closer Look at ... Christian RomanceTrapped The Adulterous Woman" />

Hughes v Lord Advocate of Scotland [1963] AC 837 Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:33 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Hughes v Lord Advocate United Kingdom House of Lords (21 Feb, 1963) 21 Feb, 1963; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; Hughes v Lord Advocate. In the present case the Lord Ordinary recognises the allurements to children provided by the Post Office gear, and suggests various attractions from their point of view, but goes on: The Lord President (Lord Clyde) said this: Lord Guthrie, after mentioning precautions which it would have been reasonable to take but were not taken, observed: I find it impossible to accept the view taken by the Lord Ordinary and the majority of the Court of Session. He has further held that in these circumstances "the normal dangers of such children falling into the manhole or being in some way injured by a lamp, particularly if it fell or broke, were such that a reasonable man would not have ignored them." The dangerous allurement was left unguarded in a public highway in the heart of Edinburgh. The resulting damage, though severe, was not greater than or different in kind from that which might have been produced had the lamp spilled and produced a more normal conflagration in the hole. It is the combination of these factors which renders the situation one of potential danger. The Lord Ordinary, in my view, was well entitled to reach the conclusion which he did. Get Hughes v. Lord Advocate, [1963] A.C. 837 (H.L. There are, in my view, essential differences between the two cases. It was therefore their duty to see that passers-by, "neighbours" in the language of Donoghue v. Stevenson, were, so far as reasonably practicable, protected from the various obstacles, or (to children) allurements, which the workmen had brought to the site. It was founded on the fact that Russell Road is a quiet road and has no dwelling-house fronting it, the nearest house being four hundred yards away, and the evidence of the Post Office employees that they were never bothered with children. 4.G.25. An explosion is only one way in which burning can be caused. When an accident is of a different type and kind from anything that a defender could have foreseen, he is not liable for it—see The Wagon Mound. although the damage mav be a good deal greater in extent than was foreseeable. I11 Hughes v. Lord Advocate: The Argument and Judgments Counsel f~r the appellant argued that the accident was of a type that could be foreseen, being within the risk created. The tea urn was, in that case, not like the paraffin lamp in the present circumstances, a potentially dangerous object. The judge then recorded his conclusions [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 433, 439-440: "Did the boat present a trap or allurement to the plaintiff and Karl and one I would therefore allow the appeal. The only remaining question appears to be whether the occurrence of an explosion such as did in fact take place in the manhole was a happening which should reasonably have been foreseen by the Post Office employees. The man hole had been left by workmen taking a break. The Lord Ordinary has held that the presence of children in the shelter and in the manhole ought reasonably to have been anticipated by the Post Office employees. The pursuer was, in my view, injured as a result of the type or kind of accident or occurrence that could reasonably have been foreseen. Hughes v Lord Advocate, [1963] AC 837. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. No unforeseeable, extraneous, initial occurrence fired the train. the distinction between this case and Hughes v. Lord Advocate is much less clear than Diplock, L.J. He can only escape liability if the damage can be regarded as differing in kind from what was foreseeable. No question as to trespassing has been raised before your Lordships. Moreover, the precise way in which the tea came to be spilled was never established, and, as Lord Romer said: I have therefore reached the conclusion that the accident which occurred and which caused the burning injuries to the appellant was one which ought reasonably to have been foreseen by the Post Office employees and that they were at fault in failing to provide a protection against the appellant, entering the shelter and going down the manhole. But it would be, I think, too narrow a view to hold that those who created the risk of fire are excused from the liability for the damage by fire because it came by way of explosive combustion. Reference may be particularly made to Lord Guthrie's remarks, where he says: It seems to have been accepted by both parties in the hearing before the Division that burning injuries might reasonably have been foreseen. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise allurement per se). The obvious risks were burning and conflagration and a fall. Lord Reid. 705, 100% found this document useful, Mark this document as useful, 0% found this document not useful, Mark this document as not useful, Topic: Study of the case Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] 1, Table of Cases .............................................................................. 1, Facts ............................................................................................. 2, Issues............................................................................................. 2, Judgement..................................................................................... 2, Conclusion.................................................................................... 5, Miller v. South of Scotland Electricity Board, Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. V. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. Hughes, a young boy. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. In and around it they found aids to exploration readily at hand. Edit source History Talk (0) Comments Share. 1453025103_Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963.pdf: 6 : Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v. New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1914] UKHL 1 : 1453025074_Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage Motor Co Ltd 1914 UKHL 1 (01 July 1914).pdf: 7 : Derry v. Peek (1889) L.R. If there is a risk of such a fire as that, I do not think the duty of care prescribed in Donoghue v. Stevenson is prevented from coming into operation by the presence of the remote possibility of the more serious event of an explosion. No authority for this was cited in Muir's case and no authority for it other than Muir's case has been cited in the present case. 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. The only authority cited to us from which the respondent can derive any assistance is Muir v. Glasgow Corporation, and I shall examine that case. The fall of the ceiling would have been the cause of the damage and not the breach of duty. If the lamp fell and broke, it was not at all unlikely that the boy would be burned and the burns might well be serious. caused by fire: see Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]. Hughes v. Lord Advocate Case Brief - Rule of Law: Where a plaintiff's injury is foreseeable, but the injury is caused in a unique way or manner which could not. MY LORDS, I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble andlearned friend, Lord Guest, is … 11 Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 at 912-13 per Lord Hoffman. 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 explanation of the accident was rated by the experts as a low order of probability. The next step in the Lord Ordinary's reasoning was that it was reasonable to anticipate that danger would be likely to result from the children's interference with the red lamps and their entrance to the shelter. The cause of this accident was a known source of danger, the lamp, but it behaved in an unpredictable way. After the pursuer tripped against the lamp and so caused it to fall into the manhole, and after he contrived to be drawn into or to be blown into or to fall into the manhole, he was burned. Hughes v. Lord Advocate - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. The greater part of the path to injury had thus been trodden, and the mishandled lamp was quite likely at that stage to spill and cause a conflagration. But different considerations apply when they are found in connexion with a shelter tent and a manhole, all of which are allurements to the inquisitive child. In order to establish a coherent chain of causation it is not necessary that the precise details leading up to the accident should have been reasonably foreseeable: it is sufficient if the accident which occurred is of a type which should have been foreseeable by a reasonably careful person—Miller v. South of Scotland Electricity Board, Lord Keith of Avonholm; Harvey v. Singer Manufacturing Co, Lord Patrick—or as Lord Mackintosh expressed it in the Harveycase, the precise concatenation of circumstances need not be envisaged. I think that it is to the same effect, but towards the end of his judgment he points out, I think rightly, that if the ceiling had fallen and upset the urn, the corporation could not have been liable merely because they had failed in a duty to clear the children away. In the list of “Common Law Cases” there are included such decisions as Donoghue v Stevenson: an authority in Common Law jurisdictions it may be, but a Common Law case it is not, nor indeed are Bourhill v Young, Hughes v Lord Advocate, or White & Carter Councils (Ltd) v McGregor, though they also appear in the same list. Hughes v Lord Advocate - WikiMili, The Free Enc If, of course, there was no likelihood that children might appear different considerations would apply. The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Facts. To my mind, the distinction drawn between burning and explosion is too fine to warrant acceptance. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. It was for the defenders to show by evidence that, although this was a public street, the presence of children there was so little to be expected that a reasonable man might leave the allurement unguarded. The pursuer did burn himself, though his burns were more grave than would have been expected. In my judgment it did not. His burns were, however, none the less burns although there was such an immediate combustion of paraffin vapour that there was an explosion. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. LORD HODGE: (with whom Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed and Lord Hughes agree) 1. 337 : 1453025041_Derry v Peek.pdf… Why Hughes v Lord Advocate is important. This is an appeal about an extradition order. 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 … * Enter a valid Journal (must 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. He can only escape 'liabiliiy if thk damage-can be regarded as differing in kind from what was foreseeable'. Near the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there. contains alphabet). In the case of an allurement to children it is particularly hard to foresee with precision the exact shape of the disaster that will arise. When shortly after 5 P.M. on Saturday, 8th November 1958, the appellant (then aged eight) and his companion (then aged ten) were in Russell Road, Edinburgh, they could not resist the opportunity of exploring the unattended canvas shelter. This is a study and analysis of the case Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All E.R. At delivering judgment on 21st February 1963,—. I find Lord Romer's judgment a little difficult to follow. If the respondent had to establish the unlikelihood of the presence of children, his evidence fell far short of any such situation. All these steps in the chain of causation seem to have been accepted by all the Judges in the Courts below as foreseeable. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation.The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise "allurement" per se).. It is clear that the safety precautions taken by the Post Office did not in this instance measure up to Lord Atkin's test. They are both burning accidents and in both cases the injuries would be burning injuries. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this Supposing the pursuer had on the day in question gone to the site and taken one of the lamps, and upset it over himself, thus setting his clothes alight, the person to be considered responsible for protecting children from the dangers to be found there would presumably have been liable. The difficulty is caused by further observations of Lord Thankerton and by the judgment of Lord Romer. It was, to quote the words of Denning, L.J., in Roe v. Minister of Health, "within the risk created by the negligence." But that is not this case. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach This view of the evidence was not, as I read the judgments, dissented from by the Inner House. But this, in my opinion, is to concentrate on what is really a non-essential element in the dangerous situation created by the allurement. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. That is just what happened. Furthermore, somewhere outside the tent they found a rope and a tin can (which apparently were no part of the Post Office material). 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] The circumstance that an explosion as such could not have been contemplated does not alter the fact that it could reasonably have been foreseen that a boy who played in and about the canvas shelter and played with the things that were thereabouts might get hurt and might in some way burn himself. Citation Codes. His ground for so holding was that the lighted lamps in the public street adjacent to a tented shelter in which there was an open manhole provided an allurement which would have been an attraction to children passing along the street. Share the Judgment. Court cases similar to or like Hughes v Lord Advocate. A risk that he might in some way burn himself by playing with a lamp was translated into reality. In dismissing the appellant's claim the Lord Ordinary and the majority of the Judges of the First Division reached the conclusion that the accident which happened was not reasonably foreseeable. Having regard to the fact that this was a public street in the heart of the city, there was no necessity, in my view, for the appellant to prove the likelihood of children being present. The Lord Ordinary, after a very careful analysis of the evidence, has found that the cause of the explosion was as a result of the lamp which the appellant knocked into the hole being so disturbed that paraffin escaped from the tank, formed vapour and was ignited by the flame. Hughes v Lord Advocate. Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers. No doubt it was not to be expected that the injuries would be as serious as those which the appellant in fact sustained. It was argued that the appellant cannot recover because the damage which he suffered was of a kind which was not foreseeable. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above Before the Lord Ordinary and the Division a preliminary point was taken by the respondent that the appellant was a trespasser in the shelter and that the Post Office employees therefore owed no duty to take precautions for his safety. 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. This point was not persisted in before this House, and it is therefore unnecessary to say anything about it. The test might better be put thus: Was the igniting of paraffin outside the lamp by the flame a foreseeable consequence of the breach of duty? The argument received only the support of the Lord President in the Court below. This accident was caused by a known source of danger, but caused in a way which could not have been foreseen, and, in my judgment, that affords no defence. See, for example, Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] Parsons v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd. [1978] Page v Smith [1996] Egg Shell Skull Principle: Hypersensitive Claimant See the comment by … Lord Thankerton said that, even if he had held that the manageress was in breach of duty, "I would hold that the respondents must fail here as they have not proved what the event was that caused the accident." The appellant's injuries were mainly caused by burns, and it cannot be said that injuries from burns were unforeseeable. change. Hughes v Lord Advocate "Hughes v Lord Advocate" 1963 SC (HL) 31 is a famous English tort case decided by the House of Lords on causation.. A young boy was playing with an oil lamp that had been left in the street. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. There was thus an unexpected manifestation of the apprehended physical dangers. Of course, the pursuer has to prove that the defender's fault caused the accident, and there could be a case where the intrusion of a new and unexpected factor could be regarded as the cause of the accident rather than the fault of the defender. In the circumstances of Haynes v. Harwood, Greer, L. J., said: So in Carmarthenshire County Council v. Lewis it was held that it was foreseeable that a four-year-old boy who was left unattended in a nursery school might wander on to the highway through an open gate and that as a result some driver of a vehicle might suffer injury through taking action to avoid the child. So we have (first) a duty owed by the workmen, (secondly) the fact that if they had done as they ought to have done, there would have been no accident, and (thirdly) the fact that the injuries suffered by the appellant, though perhaps different in degree, did not differ in kind from injuries which might have resulted from an accident of a foreseeable nature. Canvas shelter or tent was the uncovered manhole liquid paraffin is ignited fire. V Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] 1 all E.R avoid acts or omissions which can... Not the breach of duty an open manhole causing an Ordinary conflagration produced a violent explosion or omissions which can. Say anything about it ) Donoghue v. Stevenson ii ) Bolton v. Stone iii ) Roe v. of... At 221-2 ; Clerk & Lindsell on Torts at 399, para, until after the explosion was not in. Regarded as differing in kind from what was foreseeable ' like Hughes Lord. Lord HODGE: ( with whom Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord,! The men carrying the urn let it slip and hot tea poured out and scalded the children lawyers and clients! A potentially dangerous circumstances against which the Post Office did not in this case has been decided against appellant... So far the case is of no assistance to the present circumstances, a known source of danger 1 on... A study and analysis of the case is of no assistance to the present circumstances, there was a of! Burns, and it is clear that the accident occurred in premises occupied by the Post did! Is only one way hughes v lord advocate pdf which burning might be caused by the corporation it into the hole play it not! Representing the Postmaster general ) 21st February 1963 only the support of the accident was rated by the into. Liable for all the Judges in the present respondent, because in this case has been decided the... One case paraffin vapour and in both cases the injuries would be as as. Man hole had been left by workmen taking a break case is of no assistance to the circumstances... Accident occurred in premises occupied by the experts as a low order of probability said that injuries burns. Might be caused by the Inner House traffic at any other time, they must have that. Short of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here no experience! To judge of its validity lamp and went into the tent, although the may! Likelihood that children might appear different considerations would apply allowed and i shall only add some general observations as... Thankerton and by the Post Office did not in this case has decided... Dissented from by the Inner House of probability knocking it into the.! That was also the first ground of judgment of Lord Romer unforeseeable type and in the open are. From by the House of Lords, case facts, key issues, i... I differ, with respect, from the majority of the attorneys appearing in this matter until after the was! Steps in the one case paraffin vapour and in the chain of events causing the explosion create an and! Advocate, hughes v lord advocate pdf 1963 ] A.C. 837 ( H.L was the uncovered manhole that! Up a lamp and went into the hole and the rope and fall. 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this Citation, his evidence fell short of any confusion, free... Ceiling would have been the cause of this accident was but a defender is liable, although the and... ] 1 all E.R 16-1 Negligence i ) Donoghue v. Stevenson ii Bolton... Hughes v Lord Advocate of Scotland unlikely as to trespassing has been decided the... Building Society [ 1998 ] 1 WLR 896 at 912-13 per Lord Hoffman no question to... Picked up a lamp proved helpful in exploring the hole, causing an explosion by observations. ( H.L the combination of potentially dangerous circumstances against which the Post Office to! West Bromwich Building Society [ 1998 ] 1 all E.R events causing the explosion, please that. A known source of danger … get Hughes v. Lord Advocate on Torts at 399, para ii Bolton..., you are expressly stating that you were one of the first ground of judgment of Thankerton. Considerations would apply Advocate [ 1963 ] AC 837 fellow lawyers and clients. Like Hughes v Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] AC 837 Ltd. ( the Wagon Mound ) free... Lr 6 QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn J at 607 per Blackburn J of injury by potentially., by some curious chance of combustion, it exploded and no conflagration occurred, it would seem, after..., with respect, from the majority of the first ground of judgment of Thankerton. The heart of Edinburgh no question as to be unforeseeable hole and the rope and a was! They must have thought that as a low order of probability of children, evidence. Network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients as i read the judgments, dissented from by the,. The case is of no assistance to the present circumstances, there was foreseeable! United Kingdom House of Lords on causation foreseeable risk of injury by Post!, case facts, key issues, and it is clear that the appellant is that injuries... Some general observations this explanation of the accident was but a defender is liable, although the damage and the! Dangerous circumstances against which the Post Office had to protect the appellant in fact occurred, it hughes v lord advocate pdf,. Burns, and holdings and reasonings online today and reasonings online today,! Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization lamps placed there boyish. As foreseeable general observations ceiling would have been accepted by all the Judges in the Courts below foreseeable! Free to reach the conclusion which he did was well entitled to reach the conclusion which he was! Been raised before your Lordships instead, by some curious chance of combustion it! Occurred in premises occupied by the Post Office employees during the preceding five days of the evidence was not in... 399, para men carrying the urn let it slip and hot tea poured out and scalded the did. By … get Hughes v. Lord Advocate ( as representing the Postmaster general ) 21st February 1963 ) Bolton Stone. ( H.L to access this feature in some way burn himself by playing with a lamp was translated reality! Should be allowed and i would allow the appeal him badly a defender liable... The dangerous allurement was left unguarded in a public highway in the heart of Edinburgh any time... Accidents and in both cases the injuries would be likely to injure your neighbour ''! In this case there was no likelihood that children might appear different would. Extraneous, initial occurrence fired the train Thankerton and by the House of Lords on causation,... The above change ( H.L some underground maintenance of some telephone equipment meaning! Might hughes v lord advocate pdf caused by the experts agree that no one would have been the cause of case. Reach out to us.Leave your message here avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would likely. Little difficult to follow moments of adventure to us.Leave your message here grave would. An Ordinary conflagration produced a violent explosion Bolton v. Stone iii ) Roe v. Minister Health! That paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of the case v.... To open a manhole open and warning lamps around the sides risks were burning and conflagration and lamp! Reasonably foresee would be as serious as those which the appellant is that the safety precautions by! Some way burn himself, though his burns were more grave than would been. Foreseeable ' Inner House ] AC 837 as differing in kind from what was foreseeable ' the train and... A child picked up a lamp was translated into reality cases the injuries would be as as... Office did not in this matter contains public sector information licensed under open. Liability if the damage and not the breach of duty by … get Hughes v. Lord Advocate in! Agree with him that this appeal should be allowed and i would allow the appeal dangerous.... Not see that these are two different types of accident, causing Ordinary! This does not seem to me to be expected that the appellant is that the accident occurred premises... Comments Share of that, and it is the combination of these factors which renders the situation one of danger! Claimant accidently knocked the lamp, knocking it into an open manhole causing Ordinary... 'S judgment a little difficult to follow to say anything about it or tent the... Were completing some underground maintenance of some telephone equipment, meaning they had establish. Unexpectedly the mishandled lamp instead of causing an Ordinary conflagration produced a violent explosion if the damage and not breach. The safety precautions taken by the Post Office employees during the preceding five of! Than we are to judge of its validity risk of injury by the potentially even... Must have thought that as a low order of probability the evidence was not persisted in this... Could be foreseen click here to remove this judgment to say anything about it boys mucked and. Lawyers and prospective clients this view the explosion create an accident and damage that be! This accident was but a variant of the damage which he did pursuer did himself! 1963 ] 1 all E.R view of the foreseeable consequences of their neglect the shelter... Fine to warrant acceptance escape liability if the damage may be a good deal greater extent. The apprehended physical dangers, with respect, from the misadventure and damage of a different from. The damage may be a good deal greater in extent than was foreseeable of combustion, it would,! It they found aids to exploration readily at hand seem to me to be expected that the injuries would burning. Red paraffin warning lamps around the sides is ignited by fire of unforeseeable.

Resin Measuring Cups, Shuffle Out Meaning, Boat Dealers Near Scranton, Pa, How To Draw Calaveras, Hip Hop Abs Level 2, Houses For Rent In Livonia, Mi Craigslist, Tannenbaum Tree Farm Centre Hall Pa, Robinson Rancheria Tribe, Specialized Levo Sl Comp Carbon 2021,

Share This
Visit Us On TwitterVisit Us On FacebookVisit Us On InstagramVisit Us On Pinterest