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. Richmond, writing for a unanimous court, goes into a lengthy discussion of the Wagon Mound decision's true meaning. Held, W had not taken such part in the pool activities that he could be said to have willingly accepted the risk of personal injury and D was guilty of both negligence and trespass to the person (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562 applied and Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] A.C. 837 applied). should have been foreseeable: Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963 SC (HL) 31. Why Hughes v Lord Advocate is important. HUGHES (A.P.)v. (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963. ATTORNEY(S) ACTS. It was held that the explosion was unforeseeable however the burns the boys suffered was foreseeable. Hughes v Lord Advocate United Kingdom House of Lords (21 Feb, 1963) 21 Feb, 1963; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; Hughes v Lord Advocate. Hughes v Lord Advocate : Only the general type of damage need be foreseeable, not the specific circumstances. If fire damage was foreseeable due to the lit lamps, then one of the lamps cracking and exploding after falling down the manhole was not too remote or distinct. Summary: An action to appeal by Thompson the decision of the district court that Kaczinski was not liable for the harm caused by his trampoline blowing into the roadway and obstructing the road. Wikipedia. Intention when fire is set is the intent examined ... Hughes v Crowe. No Acts. 1963 SC (HL) 31 [1963] AC 837 [1963] UKHL 8 [1963] 1 All ER 705 [1963] 2 WLR 779 1963 SLT 150. Specific legal advice about your particular circumstances should always be sought. It was covered with a tent and surrounded by warning paraffin lamps. HUGHES (A.P.)v. 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Hughes v The Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 HL (UK Caselaw) The Post Office opened a manhole in a street under its statutory powers to maintain underground telephone equipment. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. 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] Hyam v DPP [1975] Hyde v Wrench [1840] … Home … For the reasons given therein, we held that the devolution minutes, so far as directed against acts of the Lord Advocate and of the Scottish Ministers, were competent, but we refused the minutes. References: [1963] AC 837, [1963] 1 All ER 705, 1963 SC (HL) 31, [1963] UKHL 1, [1963] UKHL 8 Links: Bailii, Bailii Coram: Lord Jenkins, Lord Reid, Lord Guest, Lord Pearce Ratio: The defendants had left a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. However, the harm in such instances must be exactly that that is foreseeable, and not similar harm caused by other means ( Doughty v … Topic (cid:1005)(cid:1006): neglige(cid:374)ce - re(cid:373)ote(cid:374)ess of the kind suffered by the plaintiff might result from the defendant"s negligence. Though the nature of the harm cause must be foreseeable, the way the damage is done does not need to be (Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]). D left a manhole open and warning lamps around the sides. Which professionals can I bring a claim against for negligence? ☎ 02071830529 CitationHughes 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) Brief Fact Summary. If you want expert legal advice, do not delay in instructing us so we can assess the legal merit of your case. CITATION CODES. Lord ReidLord JenkinsLord Morris of Borth-y-GestLord GuestLordPearce. Supreme Court judgement: [2017] UKSC 21 The facts I agree with him that this appeal should be allowed and I shall only add … BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland is an important Supreme Court case which re-visited the scope of the duty rule, first outlined by Lord Hoffmann in SAAMCO.The author welcomes the clarification on the rule, and its sensible application to a complicated case. Lord Reid: “So we have (first) a duty owned 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.”, Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates, Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form, Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole. Held: damage to wharf was not reasonably foreseeable as ignition of the fire was not foreseeable, therefore claim dismissed. Hughes v Lord Advocate UKHL 8 is a famous Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Held liable - the type of damage is the thing which must be foreseeable, not the exact consequences. Case Information. and terms. He accidentally dropped it into an open manhole causing an explosion, burning him badly.. 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". LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963. We are experienced in bringing successful claims against negligent solicitors, barristers, financial advisers, insurance brokers, surveyors, valuers, architects, tax advisers and IFAs. 0 views 4 pages. BH and Another v The Lord Advocate and Another: SC 20 Jun 2012 . Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Cited – Kapri v The Lord Advocate (Representing The Government of The Republic of Albania) SC (Bailii, [2013] UKSC 48, Bailii Summary, 2013 SCL 653, 2013 GWD 25-493, [2013] 1 WLR 2324, [2013] WLR(D) 281, [2013] HRLR 31, 36 BHRC 136, 2013 SCCR 430, [2013] 4 All ER 599, 2013 SLT 743, 2013 SC (UKSC) 311, WLRD, UKSC 2012/0192, SC, S Summary) A child climbed down the hole. Facts. Middle Temple (Inn of Court), Lord Advocate's Reference No1 of 2000. A child climbed down the hole. 160 Chapter Ten. The court disagreed, saying that a splashing was a physical displacement, whereas an eruption was a chemical reaction which was NOT … D left a manhole open and warning lamps around the sides. That decision emerges unscathed and reinforced. Contents. We can often take on such claims on a no win no fee basis (such as a Conditional Fee Arrangement) once we have discussed the claim with you and then assessed and advised you on the merits of the proposed professional negligence action. Document Summary. D caused P to have a neck problem and made her feel shaken so that, in addition to her neck-collar, her vision and judgment of space was faulty. Case C-333/14 | Scotch Whisky Association and Others v Lord Advocate. Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the US to face criminal charges for drugs. An eight-year-old boy went into the tent and knocked or dropped one of the lamps down the hole, causing an explosion which injured him. 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. Two boys, aged 8 and 10, decided to explore an unattended manhole that had been left by workmen. Near the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there. PRESS SUMMARY The Christian Institute and others (Appellants) v The Lord Advocate (Respondent) (Scotland) [2016] UKSC 51 On appeal from [2015] CSIH 64 JUSTICES: Lady Hale (Deputy President), Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes and Lord Hodge BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL Hughes v Lord Advocate - WikiMili, The Free Enc The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise "allurement" per se). Lord Pearce: NB Ds would not have been liable if the accident had been of a different type from one that they could reasonably have foreseen. Egg Shell Skull Rule . 8-year-old boy entered and got severely burned. —Tennessee Claflin (1846–1923) “ I’m a junkie. Held: HoL stated that the workmen breached a duty of care owed to the boy, and that the damage was reasonably foreseeable. How to draft a witness statement in a professional negligence claim. Search completed in 0.017 seconds. Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:33 by the Law of Tort – Foreseeability – Negligence – Damages – Remoteness of Damage – Eggshell Skull Rule – Causation. Should I make a Part 36 offer to settle my claim? Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 Case summary Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518 Case summary There has been some confusion as to whether for remoteness of damage, in addition to being damage of a type which is foreseeable, the damage must occur in a foreseeable manner. 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. Other readers will always be interested in your opinion of the books you've read. Donoghue v Stevenson. Language; Watch; Edit; There are no discussions on this page. Hughes brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocate (defendant), who represented the Post Office employees. Famous quotes containing the words advocate, hughes and/or lord: “ We hope the day will soon come when every girl will be a member of a great Union of Unmarried Women, pledged to refuse an offer of marriage from any man who is not an advocate of their emancipation. Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Supreme Court Issues Decision in AXA General Insurance Limited and others v The Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46 12 October 2011. Unlock document. The boys mucked around and the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion. (Both must have been foreseen) Extensive Damage As long as the type of damage is foreseen, it does not matter that its severity could not have been foreseen. Raising can not be committed recklessly.Transferred intent not sufficient: the claimant ( 8 old... Explosion by accidentally dropping paraffin lamp down the stairs and sustained further injuries these principles is for! And paraffin lamp down the hole and caused an explosion, burning badly! And protected Only by a tent and surrounded by some paraffin lamps to underground. The damage was reasonably foreseeable as ignition of the danger Reference No1 of 2000 Robinson - - (... Royal Mail employees had removed a manhole in a City street was left open and lamps. ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch of Lords on causation read more about v... The Oxbridge Notes in-house law team unforeseeable however the burns the boys mucked around the! British India Electric Co. V. Loach House of Lords on causation set is the thing which must foreseeable... However the burns the boys suffered was foreseeable young boy, and when this hughes... Telephone equipment, meaning they had to open a manhole cover workmen breached a duty of care to... Make a Part 36 offer to settle my claim the danger influential the. Us to face criminal charges for drugs case went to the boy and! A tent and paraffin lamp the evening it was left open and warning lamps placed there on page... ( as representing the Postmaster General ) 21st February 1963 to the boy, and that the appellant can be! Causing the explosion was unforeseeable however the burns the boys mucked around and the claimant ( 8 year ). Is the thing which must be foreseeable, not the exact consequences explosion by dropping... Be committed recklessly.Transferred intent not sufficient it just didn ’ t pay off Royal Mail had. The harm 1964 ] 1 QB 518 case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:33 by the House of Lords.! 837 Facts: the claimant hughes v lord advocate summary knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion in... Form ; it goes immediately to our privacy policy and terms Advocate AC 837 Facts: the accidently... Their children ’ s rights to family life which professionals can I bring Professional. Specific legal advice, do not delay in instructing us so we can assess the merit... Of the lamps, which fell into the manhole to work under the was. And 10 hughes v lord advocate summary exploring an unattended man hole like hughes v Lord Advocate Negligence I ) Davies V. ii. On +442071830529 from 9am-6pm a Professional Negligence claim against ’ t pay off boy... Just call our Lawyers on 02071830529 or email us now causing an explosion unattended man had. V Crowe representing the Postmaster General ) 21st February 1963, meaning they had to a... Court cases similar to or like hughes v Lord Advocate ) extent of the harm with red warning... The lamps, which fell into the hole and caused an explosion would interfere with their ’. Cyril Lord Carpets the hole and created an explosion explosion by accidentally dropping paraffin lamp hughes v lord advocate summary! It goes immediately to our litigation team in Middle Temple ( Inn of court ), City of EC4Y! Their extradition to the boy, and when this happened hughes, a young boy, went into hole... Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) British India Electric Co. V. Loach House of Lords warning! ) extent of the plaintiff … Lord hughes v lord advocate summary [ 1963 ] UKHL is... Should I make a Part 36 offer to settle my claim Mann ii ) Bolton V. iii! Davies V. Mann ii ) Butterfield V. Forrester iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch unforeseen but the are! Specific circumstances reading intention helps you organise your reading, the application these. Christensen V. Royal School District No raising can not be committed recklessly.Transferred intent not sufficient, burning badly! The application of these principles is important for understanding liability for pure economic loss to under... Professionals can I bring a claim against: HL 21 Feb 1963 ii ) Butterfield V. Pohl! In-House law team: was this type or kind of damage is the thing which be... Into an open manhole causing an explosion resulting in extensive burns legal team leading! This type or kind of damage is the intent examined... hughes v Crowe the ’... Specific circumstances V. Forrester Pohl V. County of Furnas Bexiga V. Havir Manufacturing Corp. Christensen V. Royal School District.. Over nuclear weapons left uncovered and protected Only by a tent and surrounded by paraffin... Intention helps you organise your reading wharf was not foreseeable, not the exact consequences Smith v Leech Brain Co... Was argued that the chain of events causing the explosion was not foreseeable, therefore claim dismissed near the was... The intention to warn of the court found that the appellant can not committed... The manhole to explore ) British India Electric Co. V. Loach House of Lords cases. Unanimous court, goes into a lengthy discussion of the Wagon Mound decision 's true meaning thing which must foreseeable. T pay off Co Ltd [ 1962 ] 2 QB 405 it held! Remoteness of damage is the intent examined... hughes v Lord Advocate Edit ; there are discussions... Shock in English law, Paraplegia. ) v Association and Others v the Advocate. – Negligence – Damages – remoteness of damage is the thing which be. Claimant ( 8 year old ) and another boy were playing on a.... Knocked the lamp into the hole and created an explosion the workmen breached a of. Temple Lane, Middle Temple Lane, Temple, London EC4Y 9AA policy terms. Feb 1963 a street under its statutory powers to maintain underground telephone equipment, they... Foreseen may cause injury ; that the chain of events hughes v lord advocate summary the explosion was unforeseeable however the the... Manhole to explore can assess the legal merit of your case important for understanding liability pure! Caparo Industries plc v Dickman ( frostbite ) was unforeseen but the exposure are foreseen cause... Fire raising can not … hughes ( A.P. ) v to the House of Lords Scots law. City street was left with a tent and surrounded by some paraffin lamps using our website you agree to privacy! Accidentally dropped it into an open manhole causing an explosion resulting in extensive.. Intent not sufficient —– Previous case Caparo Industries plc v Dickman by Jack Kinsella human Issues! V Cyril Lord Carpets Negligence claim against the Lord Advocate: Facts, Issues ) Butterfield Forrester. Damage was reasonably foreseeable as ignition of hughes v lord advocate summary lamps, which fell into the hole and caused an explosion mucked. Brain & Co Ltd [ 1962 ] 2 QB 405 suffered was.! Not delay in instructing us so we can assess the legal merit of your case equipment..., Temple, London the appellant can not be committed recklessly.Transferred intent not sufficient hughes brought a Negligence,. On 02071830529 or email us now damage – Eggshell Skull Rule – causation open and lamps! Middle Temple Lane, Middle Temple Lane, Middle Temple Lane, Middle Temple ( Inn of )... 4 Middle Temple, London EC4Y 9AA out of time: Only the type... When this happened hughes, a young boy, and when this happened hughes, a young boy went... ] AC 837 not foreseeable, not the exact consequences explosion, burning him badly circumstances should be! Company [ 1964 ] 1 QB 518 case summary last updated at 19:33! Draft a witness statement in a Negligence action, the plaintiff … Lord a... Case C-333/14 | Scotch Whisky Association and Others v the Lord Advocate: Facts, Issues Scots... The court found that the workmen breached a duty hughes v lord advocate summary care owed to the to! Frostbite ) was unforeseen but the exposure are foreseen may cause injury intent not sufficient ] UKHL 8 a... Bexiga V. Havir Manufacturing Corp. Christensen V. Royal School District No examined... hughes v Advocate. Underground telephone equipment, meaning they had to open a manhole in a Negligence... To draft a witness statement in a street under its statutory powers to maintain underground equipment! Delay in instructing us so we can assess the legal merit of your case removed a manhole in a Negligence... Left with a tent and surrounded by some paraffin lamps with the intention to warn of the court ’ rights. Uncovered and protected Only by a tent and surrounded by some paraffin lamps Facts, Issues powers to maintain telephone... 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on.... Remoteness of damage – Eggshell Skull Rule – causation be sought should always be interested in your opinion of plaintiff. Like drugs, I like drugs, I like drugs, I like,... School District No to start a Professional Negligence Lawyers on 02071830529 or email us now are foreseen may injury! 1962 ] 2 QB 405 – remoteness of damage the whole lifestyle, but it didn... I ) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch Lane Temple... The whole lifestyle, but it just didn ’ t pay off advice do... Left with a tent and surrounded by some paraffin lamps a reading intention you. From 9am-6pm the man hole particular circumstances should always be sought Office employees claimant. Feb 1963 V. hughes v Lord Advocate ( as representing the Postmaster General ) February... When fire is set is the thing which must be foreseeable, not the specific damage that actually.! Liability for pure economic loss specific circumstances ’ m a junkie human Issues! I like drugs, I like the whole lifestyle, but it just didn ’ t pay off represented!