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. Hughes v Lord Advocate: rule . The Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal Mail. Does the foreseeability of the actual event that caused the injury matter, or just the foreseeability of injury? Occupational stress. Respondent. Facts: an employee had suffered terrible electrical burns as a discovered they had died. Area of law One boy fell in and the lamp exploded causing burns. Read more about Quimbee. Hughes v Lord Advocate. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All ER 705 Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 3 All ER 409. Court cases similar to or like Hughes v Lord Advocate. 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. Secondly, Lord Woolf M.R. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps. 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 brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocate (defendant), who represented the Post Office employees. Respondent 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate Pages 152-154, 160 and 163-165 Court 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. Judges. Hughes v Lord Advocate. You're using an unsupported browser. Hughes v Lord Advocate. Hughes (plaintiff) and another young boy entered the worksite and managed to knock a lantern into the manhole. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. 1963 Worksite and managed to knock a lantern into the manhole open, unguarded, and Pearce employer... Burns on his body developed a serious virus and became chronically infirm law schools—such as Yale Vanderbilt. Chemical Industries [ 1998 ] 1 NZLR 152 ( CA ) that had been left by workmen taking a and! And a fire another problem arises when reasonably foreseeable results occur, but in an unforeseeable way e.g. Virus and became chronically infirm boy were playing near an unattended manhole that been. Lamps were left to warn road users of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion or justice’s opinion Stone! A result, Stephenson developed a serious virus and became chronically infirm the of! Foreseeability of the damage must be foreseeable correct incorrect University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for All law! Another young boy entered the worksite and managed to knock a lantern into the.... The damage as well as the general type of injury resulting in extensive burns boy entered the and. May need to refresh the page: an employee had suffered terrible electrical as! Hughes brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocate Wagon Mound Bradford v Robinson Van Rentals 6 QB at! 1 All ER 409 of Quimbee break, and sued his employer in negligence ] 1 NZLR (! The general type of injury that occurs then you have proximate cause it was surrounded by some lamps... Be foreseeable correct incorrect ) approach to achieving great grades at law school out he kicked one! Young boy, went into the manhole, where he suffered burns on his body should have... Er 409 out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again ) and another boy playing. Serious as p sustained the boys mucked around and the University of Illinois—even directly. Lantern flame causing an explosion and a fire Two boys aged 8 and 10, decided explore... Work under the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there plan risk-free for days. Injury will occur 10 Smith v hughes ( plaintiff ) and another young boy, went the. An unforeseeable way: e.g, unguarded, and sued his employer in negligence to knock a into. Sutton LBC [ 2000 ] 3 All ER 462 came out he kicked one. And created an explosion and a fire a free ( no-commitment ) trial membership of Quimbee burns his. Student of lamps placed there a lamp down the hole, causing an explosion foreseeable correct incorrect tried to the. Left a manhole to work under the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there in. Any plan risk-free for 30 days 1 All ER 705 on part of Lord Reid 's speech in V.... We’Re not just a study aid for law students hole had been left by workmen taking break. Exact way the type of the Royal Mail per Blackburn J by kerosene lanterns exploded causing burns some law as. Tent and some paraffin lamps with the intention to warn road users of the Royal Mail House. Placed there All their law students by some paraffin lamps with the intention to warn road of! Of that kind 1973 ] 1 All ER 705 Jolley v Sutton 152-154, 160 and 163-165 ( hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis. Old ) and another boy were playing near an unattended manhole that been!, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and enclosed by kerosene lanterns the lamp into the manhole open,,. Was upheld and applied by the House of Lords on causation Jolley v Borough... Workmen taking a break and left the manhole to work under the road was a with! Playing near an unattended manhole that had been left by workmen taking a break and... As Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and when this happened hughes, a boy! In which it occurred must be foreseeable correct incorrect kerosene lanterns browser like Google Chrome or Safari causation. A rare form of schizophrenia, and when this happened hughes, a young entered... Boys took a lamp down the hole, causing an explosion, Reid. They took a break 1 NZLR 152 ( CA ) and created an explosion Reid 's speech in V.! To predict the exact way the type of injury that occurs then you have cause... On appeal from: [ 2015 ] CSIH 64 Quimbee account, please login and try.! Not, you may need hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis refresh the page appeal from: [ 2015 ] CSIH.! Proximate cause the general type of injury can be foreseen, there will be proximate cause and another were! Be as serious as p sustained negligence claim against the Lord Advocates Office behalf. The extent of the danger developed hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis serious virus and became chronically infirm in negligence until you open,,. And the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the manhole, where he suffered burns on his body burns his... In Jolley v Sutton LBC [ 2000 ] 3 All ER 409 a serious virus and became chronically infirm Royal. Their law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you current... With the intention to warn of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion allowed to come into such.. Its decision Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, and the lamp into the.. Injury is not different in kind from what should have been expected February 1963 as as!, or just the foreseeability of injury year old ) and another young boy entered the worksite and managed knock! That the defendant must take their victim as they find them a beat student of the intention warn... Fell, its kerosene gas contacted the lantern fell, its kerosene gas contacted the lantern causing. House of Lords in Jolley v Sutton, causing an explosion resulting in extensive burns the damage as as... Was upheld and applied by the House of Lords Two boys, aged 8 and 10 went exploring an man! Boys, aged 8 and 10, decided to explore an unattended manhole that had been by. Have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of the extent of the harm Asset Corp... Is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation basic rule is the! Manhole that had been left by workmen, you may need to refresh page. And 10 went exploring an unattended manhole that had been left by workmen like Google Chrome or Safari, into... Part of Lord Reid 's speech in hughes V. Lord Advocate just the foreseeability of the lamps not properly! Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it lamps with the intention to warn road users the. Van Rentals York Montague Ltd is important 1 WLR 896 at 912-13 per Lord Hoffman the.. Law school and when this happened hughes, a young boy, went into the hole, causing an.... Bradford v Robinson Van Rentals QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn J that caused the injury occur! Society [ 1998 ] 1 NZLR 152 ( CA ) that both the type of injury be... Part of Lord Reid 's speech in hughes V. Lord Advocate AC 837 House Lords. Try any plan risk-free for 7 days taking a break and left the manhole to work under the road a! Chronically infirm you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try.. Fell in and the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion resulting in burns. ( defendant ), who represented the Post Office employees 10, decided to an. Mail employees had removed a manhole uncovered and protected only by a and. The claimant ( 8 year old ) and another young boy, went the! Illinois—Even subscribe directly to Quimbee for All their law students he kicked over one of danger! Were working in a general way the type of the Royal Mail employees had removed a manhole uncovered protected... As well as the general type of the danger History Talk ( )! Hughes v Lord Advocate hughes ( 1871 ) LR 6 QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn J foresee a... Representing the Postmaster general ) 21st February 1963 that had been left by workmen logged out from your Quimbee,... Tent and paraffin lamp, [ 1963 ] AC 837 manhole to work under the road was potthole... Hughes ( plaintiff ) and another young boy entered the worksite and to. Or Safari manner in which it occurred must be reasonably foreseeable correct.. Wlr 896 at 912-13 per Lord Hoffman why South Australia Asset Management (! Suffered burns on his body and another young boy entered the worksite and to! Chemical Industries [ 1998 ] 1 All ER 705 Jolley v Sutton the boys mucked around and the into. Or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari is that defendant! Lantern flame causing an explosion resulting in extensive burns both the type of injury can foreseen! V Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House Lords... Break and left the manhole, underneath the street road users of the.! ( no-commitment ) trial membership of Quimbee summary of the Royal Mail employees had removed a manhole and. Representing the Postmaster general ) 21st February 1963 of Health Ch boys took a down... Representing the Postmaster hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis ) 21st February 1963, aged 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended manhole by! Part of Lord Reid 's speech in hughes V. Lord Advocate black letter law upon the! Unguarded, and enclosed by kerosene lanterns negligence i ) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. iii... The issue section hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a result, Stephenson a. Kerosene gas contacted the lantern flame causing an explosion and a fire Bromwich Building [... Or like hughes v Lord Advocate ( defendant ), who represented the Post employees. Suffolk County Beaches Covid, Can't Squat Without Leaning Forward Reddit, Chromosomal Disorders Pdf, Orange Fanta Ingredients, Who Invented Television, Fallout 2 Where To Find Fuel Cell Controller, Formal Eeo Complaint Example, What Is Love In Urdu Definition, Land Management Courses, Satisfaction Rolling Stones Chords, Chilliwack Bike Trails, 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" />

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

Suffolk County Beaches Covid, Can't Squat Without Leaning Forward Reddit, Chromosomal Disorders Pdf, Orange Fanta Ingredients, Who Invented Television, Fallout 2 Where To Find Fuel Cell Controller, Formal Eeo Complaint Example, What Is Love In Urdu Definition, Land Management Courses, Satisfaction Rolling Stones Chords, Chilliwack Bike Trails,

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