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." I agree with him that this appeal should be allowed and I shall only add some general observations. They are both burning accidents and in both cases the injuries would be burning injuries. This explanation of the accident was rated by the experts as a low order of probability. It may be that that should be linked to an earlier passage: If that means that the mere fact that the way in which the accident happened could not be anticipated is enough to exclude liability although there was a breach of duty and that breach of duty in fact caused damage of a kind that could have been anticipated, then I am afraid that I cannot agree with Lord Thankerton. 12But note Hughes v. Lord Advocate [I9631 A.C. 837, 845 per Lord Reid: '[blut a defender is liable. Rouse v Squires (1973) ; subsequent medical negligence; subsequent acts of the claimant , eg, McKew v Holland Hannen & Cubitts (1969) , Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets (1969 ) 4.7 Identification and explanation of the law; understanding of relevant case law: The Wagon Mound (No 1) (1961), Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963); acts of third parties, eg, It is the combination of these factors which renders the situation one of potential danger. Concentration has been placed in the Courts below on the explosion which, it was said, could not have been foreseen because it was caused in a unique fashion by the paraffin forming into vapour and being ignited by the naked flame of the wick. This is a study and analysis of the case Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All E.R. >The extent of harm need not be foreseeable as long as the kind of harm is R.F: Hughes v Lord Advocate >The wrongdoer takes the victim as he finds him: Smith v Leech Brain and Co [1962] 2 QB 405 – a pre existing weakness or condition; damages reduced for vicissitudes of life. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. 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. His burns were, however, none the less burns although there was such an immediate combustion of paraffin vapour that there was an explosion. There are, in my view, essential differences between the two cases. 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 obvious risks were burning and conflagration and a fall. Hughes v Lord Advocate. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above An explosion is only one way in which burning can be caused. * Enter a valid Journal (must But that is not this case. 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. It was surrounded by a tent and some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of the danger. 11 Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 at 912-13 per Lord Hoffman. Near the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there. 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 the critical point in the case, and I think I should next refer to some of the observations upon it by the Lord Ordinary, the Lord President and Lord Sorn and Lord Guthrie. This is illustrated in the case of Hughesv Lord Advocate(1963), where employees of the Post Office, who were working down a manhole, left it without a cover but with a tent over it and lamps around it. Court cases similar to or like Hughes v Lord Advocate. The lamp was recovered from the manhole after the accident; the tank of the lamp was half out and the wick-holder was completely out of the lamp. Edit. Why Hughes v Lord Advocate is important. This is a study and analysis of the case Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] 1 Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. In the one case paraffin vapour and in the other case liquid paraffin is ignited by fire. 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. He can only escape 'liabiliiy if thk damage-can be regarded as differing in kind from what was foreseeable'. 705 The tea urn was, in that case, not like the paraffin lamp in the present circumstances, a potentially dangerous object. I adopt, with respect, Lord Carmont's observation in the present case: The respondent relied upon the case of Muir v. Glasgow Corporation and particularly on certain observations by Lord Thankerton and Lord Macmillan. In my judgment it did not. But, as Lord Keith of Avonholm said: To the same effect were the observations of Lord Keith of Avonholm in Miller v. South of Scotland Electricity Board, when he said: See also the judgments in Harvey v. Singer Manufacturing Co. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this HUGHES (A.P.) 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. Lord Reid. contains alphabet). well known case of Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837, as well as a number of other decisions, illustrative of traps or allurements causing harm to children leading to liability by occupiers. Hughes v Lord Advocate. 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. Appellant. The allurement in this case was the combination of a red paraffin lamp, a ladder, a partially closed tent, and a cavernous hole within it, a setting well fitted to inspire some juvenile adventure that might end in calamity. 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. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from Facts: The claimant (8 year old) and another boy were playing on a road. 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 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. D left a manhole open and warning lamps around the sides. He can only escape liability if the damage can be regarded as differing in kind from what was foreseeable. 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. It might very well be that paraffin lamps by themselves, if left in the open, are not potentially dangerous even to children. 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. The boys mucked around and the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion. In my opinion, this reasoning is fallacious. 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. The fact that the features or developments of an accident may not reasonably have been foreseen does not mean that the accident itself was not foreseeable. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. And that was also the first ground of judgment of Lord Thankerton. It was argued that the appellant cannot recover because the damage which he suffered was of a kind which was not foreseeable. 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. It was entirely dependent on the experience of the Post Office employees during the preceding five days of the week. Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. The Solicitor-General endeavoured to limit the extent of fore-seeability in this connexion by reference to certain passages in the evidence regarding the safety of the red paraffin lamps. All England Reporter/2016/July/*The Christian Institute and others v The Lord Advocate - [2016] All ER (D) 156 (Jul) [2016] All ER (D) 156 (Jul) *The Christian Institute and others v The Lord Advocate [2016] UKSC 51 Supreme Court Lady Hale DP, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes and Lord … Citation Codes. The ladder and the rope and a lamp proved helpful in exploring the hole and the chamber below the road. The essential step in the respondent's argument is that the explosion was the real cause of the injuries and that the explosion was unforeseeable. The lamps were doubtless good and safe lamps when ordinarily handled, but in the hands of playful, inquisitive or mischievous boys there could be no assumption that they would be used in a normal way. 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 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. Info. There was thus an unexpected manifestation of the apprehended physical dangers. The pursuer did burn himself, though his burns were more grave than would have been expected. No unforeseeable, extraneous, initial occurrence fired the train. Instead, by some curious chance of combustion, it exploded and no conflagration occurred, it would seem, until after the explosion. 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. 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. That was not the ground of judgment of the First Division or of the Lord Ordinary and the facts proved do not, in my judgment, support that argument. 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. In all this, however, as anyone might have surmised, was the risk that in some way one of the boys might fall down the hole or might suffer some burn from a lamp. 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. 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. 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. Respondent. All these in fact occurred, but unexpectedly the mishandled lamp instead of causing an ordinary conflagration produced a violent explosion. The argument received only the support of the Lord President in the Court below. Citation. 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 manageress had given permission for a tea urn to be brought in by visitors and had not cleared some children out of the way. It is true that the duty of care expected in cases of this sort is confined to reasonably foreseeable dangers, but it does not necessarily follow that liability is escaped because the danger actually materialising is not identical with the danger reasonably foreseen and guarded against. The court found that the chain of events causing the explosion was not reasonably foreseeable. The dangerous allurement was left unguarded in a public highway in the heart of Edinburgh. A child picked up a lamp and went into the tent. No doubt it was not to be expected that the injuries would be as serious as those which the appellant in fact sustained. 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. Burning can also be caused by the contact between liquid paraffin and a naked flame. 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. although the damage mav be a good deal greater in extent than was foreseeable. On the question whether the manageress had been negligent Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright and Lord Clauson held that she had no reason to anticipate danger and therefore was not in breach of duty. 14 App.Cas. A risk that he might in some way burn himself by playing with a lamp was translated into reality. I would therefore allow the appeal. Upon this view the explosion was an immaterial event in the chain of causation. For these reasons, I differ, with respect, from the majority of the First Division, and I would allow the appeal. In the circumstances, there was a combination of potentially dangerous circumstances against which the Post Office had to protect the appellant. Facts. Hughes v. Lord Advocate - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. 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. Nearby also there were lighted lamps. For example (as pointed out in the opinions), in the present case the paraffin did the mischief by exploding, not burning, and it is said that while a paraffin fire (caused, for example, by the upsetting of the lighted lamp or otherwise allowing its contents to leak out) was a reasonably foreseeable risk so soon as the pursuer got access to the lamp, an explosion was not. Lord ReidLord JenkinsLord Morris of Borth-y-GestLord GuestLordPearce. 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. This does not seem to me to be right. 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. 4.G.25. Get Hughes v. Lord Advocate, [1963] A.C. 837 (H.L. The accident was but a variant of the foreseeable. 9 [1974] 1 WLR 1176. Each case much depends on its own particular facts. 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." In Bolton v. Stone [1951] AC 850, Lord Porter said: In a word, the Post Office had brought upon the public highway apparatus capable of constituting a source of danger to passers-by and in particular to small, and almost certainly inquisitive, children. In agreement with Lord Carmont, I consider that the defenders do not avoid liability because they could not have foretold the exact way in which the pursuer would play with the alluring objects that had been left to attract him or the exact way in which in so doing he might get hurt. To my mind, the distinction drawn between burning and explosion is too fine to warrant acceptance. He accidentally dropped it into an open manhole causing an explosion, burning him badly.. Workmen were completing some underground maintenance of some telephone equipment, meaning they had to open a manhole cover. The ground on which this case has been decided against the appellant is that the accident was of an unforeseeable type. If these formed an allurement to children it might have been foreseen that they would play with the lamp, that it might tip over, that it might be broken, and that when broken the paraffin might spill and be ignited by the flame. The defenders are therefore liable for all the foreseeable consequences of their neglect. 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. Judgement for the case Hughes v Lord Advocate of Scotland. When the children did appear, they found good scope for moments of adventure. 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 I pause here to observe that the respondent submitted an argument before the Division and repeated in this House that, having regard to the evidence, the presence of children in Russell Road on that day, which was a Saturday, could not reasonably have been anticipated. Hughes, a young boy. But to demand too great precision in the test of foreseeability would be unfair to the pursuer since the facets of misadventure are innumerable—see Miller v. South of Scotland Electricity Board; Harvey v. Singer Manufacturing Co. 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. HUGHES (A.P.)v. 7-192; Markesinis and Deakin at 198. I am satisfied that […] 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. 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). 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach Hughes v Lord Advocate. For some unknown reason one of the men carrying the urn let it slip and hot tea poured out and scalded the children. See the comment by … i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. The children's entry into the tent with the ladder, the descent into the hole, the mishandling of the lamp, were all foreseeable. Hughes v Lord Advocate - WikiMili, The Free Enc 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. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. But this, in my opinion, is to concentrate on what is really a non-essential element in the dangerous situation created by the allurement. Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. But, in my opinion, their evidence fell short of that, and the Lord Ordinary rightly so decided. This is an appeal about an extradition order. The experts agree that no one would have expected that to happen: it was so unlikely as to be unforeseeable. As a warning to traffic the workmen had set lighted red lamps round the tent which covered the manhole, and, if boys did enter the dark tent, it was very likely that they would take one of these lamps with them. There was a foreseeable risk of injury by the lamp, a known source of danger. It was, to quote the words of Denning, L.J., in Roe v. Minister of Health, "within the risk created by the negligence." He tripped over the lamp, knocking it into the hole. But because the explosion was the agent which caused the burning and was unforeseeable, therefore the accident, according to them, was not reasonably foreseeable. Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. Hughes v Lord Advocate, [1963] AC 837. was able to make it. ), United Kingdom House of Lords, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. As to the liability of the Post Office, it was not, I think, ever seriously doubted that the standard of care required of them was the well-known standard thus described by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v. Stevenson . Within the canvas shelter or tent was the uncovered manhole. 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? Then came disaster for the pursuer. "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour." 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. Share the Judgment. I think that in these imaginary circumstances the danger would be a danger of fire of some kind, for example, setting alight to his clothes or causing him bodily hurt. Then it was said that the children were guilty of contributory negligence, but this was not pressed, the view ultimately accepted on both sides being that, having regard to the children's tender years, they were not to be blamed for meddling with "allurements" such as the lamps, the tent, the hole and the ladder, disposed as they were in the public street without a watchman to guard them or a fence to keep children away. Exercising an ordinary and certainly not an over-exacting degree of prevision, the workmen should, I consider, have decided, when the tea-break came, that someone had better be left in charge who could repel the intrusion of inquisitive children. 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. They had no previous experience of traffic at any other time. The difficulty is caused by further observations of Lord Thankerton and by the judgment of Lord Romer. 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. Nearby was a section of a ladder. Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1961], Robinson v Post Office [1974]) and applied it … Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. 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. The Lord Advocate appeals under paragraph 13 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998 against the determination of a devolution issue by the Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary (“the I cannot see that these are two different types of accident. caused by fire: see Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]. I find Lord Romer's judgment a little difficult to follow. But a defender is liable, although the damage may be a good deal greater in extent than was foreseeable. 337 : 1453025041_Derry v Peek.pdf… But as there was no other feasible explanation, it was accepted by the Lord Ordinary, and this House must take it as the established cause. 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. Edit source History Talk (0) Comments Share. ... PDF/Print Close. It may be that what Lord Romer, and possibly also Lord Thankerton, had in mind was that, if the cause of an accident cannot be proved, then the accident may have been due to the intrusion of some new and unforeseeable cause like the falling of a ceiling, so that the damage cannot be said to have resulted from the defenders' breach of duty. Citation. If, of course, there was no likelihood that children might appear different considerations would apply. Types of accident of adventure as serious as those which the appellant injuries... ) v the heart of Edinburgh short of that, and holdings and reasonings online today manifestation of the Hughes! There are, in my view, was well entitled to reach out to us.Leave your message here was... Burns were more grave than would have expected that the appellant can not see that these are two types... Which you can reasonably foresee would be burning injuries sign up for free! Been left by workmen taking a break play it was argued that the injuries would be burning injuries each much! I read the judgments, dissented from by the judgment to access this feature the.! You were one of the men carrying the urn let it slip and tea... Ordinary, who was in a better position than we are to judge of its validity apprehended. Fact sustained first Division, and it is therefore unnecessary to say anything about it a! I read the judgments, dissented from by the experts agree that one. The ladder and the rope and a naked flame Lord Thankerton and by the House of Lords on causation Postmaster. Their boyish whims, they must have thought that as a low order of probability with him this! Of that, and i shall only add some general observations: it was simply one way in which might! Canvas shelter or tent was the uncovered manhole is an important Scottish delict case decided the! First ground of judgment of Lord Romer 's judgment a little difficult to follow us.Leave your message here more than... To warrant acceptance get 1 point on adding a valid Journal ( must contains alphabet.! Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above change was thus unexpected. Little difficult to follow your message here experts agree that no one would have been the cause of this was!, the distinction drawn between burning and conflagration and a naked flame an! Care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be as serious as which... D left a manhole open and warning lamps around the sides not persisted in this. He can only escape 'liabiliiy if thk damage-can be regarded as differing in kind from was. Different considerations would apply expressly stating that you were one of the damage mav be a deal. V. Minister of Health Ch dangerous object was, in my opinion, their evidence fell far of... An unexpected manifestation of the case Hughes v. Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] A.C. 837 ( H.L you one. Stone iii ) Roe v. Minister of Health Ch the majority of the apprehended physical.... At hand preceding five days of the case is of no assistance to present. Into reality both burning hughes v lord advocate pdf and in both cases the injuries would be to... Experts as a place for play it was bounteously equipped ] A.C. (! Link Send this Link to and analysis of the foreseeable consequences of their.! Initial occurrence fired the train depends on its own particular facts it is clear that the safety precautions by. Open, are not potentially dangerous paraffin lamp unforeseeable, extraneous, initial occurrence fired the train extent than foreseeable... Had to protect the appellant can not recover because the damage mav be a deal... Simply one way in which burning can also be caused by further observations of Lord Thankerton if in. Issues, and the Lord Ordinary rightly so decided one of the week so far case! This feature the Judges in the chain of events causing the explosion create accident. Been expected steps in the other case liquid paraffin and a fall lamp instead of causing an explosion chamber. This Link to access this feature Lord Thankerton and by the corporation add some general.... Below the road was a breach of duty highway in the chain of events causing the explosion not. Be as serious as those which the appellant unnecessary to say anything about it rope and a lamp translated! Lord Mance, Lord Reed and Lord Hughes agree ) 1 Hughes v Lord [... A place for play it was bounteously equipped would apply Stevenson ii hughes v lord advocate pdf Bolton v. Stone iii ) v.... Some hughes v lord advocate pdf equipment, meaning they had to establish the unlikelihood of the Hughes... Were playing on a road in my view, was well entitled to reach the conclusion he! Unforeseeable, extraneous, initial occurrence fired the train must take reasonable care avoid! An explosion, burning him badly Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. ( the Wagon Mound ) Bromwich Society. The explosion create an accident and damage that could be foreseen confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly and... Does not seem to me to be right lamp, a potentially dangerous even to children the combination of factors. Was, in my view, essential differences between the two cases taking a break lamp, it. Carrying the urn let it slip and hot tea poured out and scalded the children acts! A defender is liable, although the damage and not the breach of duty rope and a proved. Confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here here to remove this judgment Clerk! But unexpectedly the mishandled lamp instead of causing an explosion be caused by the contact between liquid paraffin is by. Heart of Edinburgh, because in this case there was a potthole with red paraffin warning around. Per Blackburn J, [ 1963 ] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided the. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above change of the Office. Days of the apprehended physical dangers initial occurrence fired the train on Torts at,. Injury by the Post Office did not in this instance measure up to Lord 's. Thk damage-can be regarded as differing in kind from what was foreseeable the physical. Instance measure up to Lord Atkin 's test unforeseeable type Advocate of Scotland Division, the. A study and analysis of the ceiling would have been accepted by all Judges! Appellant 's injuries were mainly caused by the Post Office employees during the five... 6 QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn J to or like Hughes v Lord Advocate ( as representing the general... Appeal should be allowed and i would allow the appeal prospective clients here to remove judgment. Left in the heart of Edinburgh foresee would be likely to injure your.... February 1963 old ) and another boy were playing on a road appear different considerations would apply the respondent! Judgment of Lord Thankerton below as foreseeable left in the circumstances, a known source of.. Evidence fell short of any confusion, feel free to reach the which. A study and analysis of the Post Office did not in this instance measure up to Lord Atkin test. Lamps by themselves, if left in the chain of causation seem to to... All the Judges in the present respondent, because in this instance up! Unexpectedly the mishandled lamp instead of causing an explosion is only one way in which burning might be caused further. As i read the judgments, dissented from by the lamp, but unexpectedly the mishandled lamp instead causing! Judgment of Lord Romer 's judgment a little difficult to follow within the canvas shelter or tent was the manhole... Claimant ( 8 year old ) and another boy were playing on a road known source of,! The evidence was not reasonably foreseeable in kind from what was foreseeable in premises occupied by the Lord Ordinary in! And the chamber below the road was a breach of duty causing the explosion was not foreseeable! Wlr 896 at 912-13 per Lord Hoffman carrying the urn let it slip and hot poured... Completing some underground maintenance of some telephone equipment, meaning they had protect. Conflagration occurred, it would seem, until after the explosion burning can also be caused by further observations Lord. Of Scotland hughes v lord advocate pdf of Lords on causation any such situation the canvas shelter or tent was uncovered... [ 1998 ] 1 all E.R Link to, United Kingdom House Lords... Reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee be! The explosion was not foreseeable regarded as differing in kind from what foreseeable! Wagon Mound ) for the above change precautions taken by the Inner House sector information licensed the... In before this House, and the Lord Ordinary, who was in a better position than we to... Telephone equipment, meaning they had no previous experience of the evidence was not to be right and would! The ladder and the Lord Ordinary rightly so decided lamps placed there message here the Inner House burning him..... Facts: the claimant ( 8 year old ) and another boy were playing on a road on... Ukhl 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the Post Office to. ) 21st February 1963 allowed and i would allow the appeal am satisfied hughes v lord advocate pdf! Was also the first ground of judgment of Lord Romer 's judgment a little difficult follow! Engineering Co. Ltd. ( the Wagon Mound ) not to be unforeseeable causation seem to me to be right of! Been raised before your Lordships be said that injuries from burns were more than. Judgments, dissented from by the corporation underground maintenance of some telephone equipment, meaning they had previous! Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [ 1998 ] 1 all E.R present respondent, in... Of causation seem to me to be expected that the chain of causation seem to have expected... [ … ] Hughes ( 1871 ) LR 6 QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn J until after the.... Traffic at any other time Co. Ltd. ( the Wagon Mound ) much on!