Hughes v Lord Advocate Wagon Mound Bradford v Robinson Van Rentals. Cancel anytime. Hughes v Lord Advocate: statement of principle. Frostbite whilst driving wrecked van. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate AC 837 House of Lords Two boys aged 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended man hole. Another problem arises when reasonably foreseeable results occur, but in an unforeseeable way: e.g. Hughes v Lord Advocate established which principle? Appellant. Court. The defendants left a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. result of d"s negligence. You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. Hughes v Lord Advocate. Hughes v Lord Advocate ... Mount isa mines v pusey have suffered from such a rare form of mental disturbance. 11 Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 at 912-13 per Lord Hoffman. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] A.C. 837 Two young boys were playing near an unattended manhole surrounded by paraffin lamps. Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2014] EWCA Civ … The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. You're using an unsupported browser. Hughes v Lord Advocate established which principle? Secondly, Lord Woolf M.R. Post Office employees were working in a manhole, underneath the street. made an observation casting doubt on part of Lord Reid's speech in Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] A.C. 837. Why South Australia Asset Management Corp (SAAMCO) v York Montague Ltd is important. 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. No contracts or commitments. MY LORDS, I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble andlearned friend, Lord Guest, is about to deliver. The claimant suffered severe burns. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. HUGHES (A.P.)v. Hughes brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocate (defendant), who represented the Post Office employees. United Kingdom The Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal Mail Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law of negligence. Read our student testimonials. Hughes v Lord Advocate: rule . reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. It was surrounded by a tent and some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of the danger. The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. a) That both the type of the damage as well as the manner in which it occurred must be reasonably foreseeable b) … 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. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd ('The Wagon Mound') [1961] AC 388 As long as you can foresee in a general way the type of injury that occurs then you have proximate cause. Hughes v Lord Advocate 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 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. No contracts or commitments. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach The holding and reasoning section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z. Boy lamp open manhole tent. 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 [1963] 1 All ER 705 Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 3 All ER 409. The manhole was covered by a tent and surrounded by some paraffin lamps with the intention to warn of the danger. HUGHES (A.P.) Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. Remoteness Occupational stress. Facts: The claimant (8 year old) and another boy were playing on a road. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Hughes v Lord Advocate. 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. 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. Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it. The employees took a break and left the manhole open, unguarded, and enclosed by kerosene lanterns. Hughes v Lord Advocate. Read more about Quimbee. Edit. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school. That the extent of the damage must be foreseeable correct incorrect. Bradford v Robinsons Rental. That both the type of the damage as well as the manner in which it occurred must be reasonably foreseeable correct incorrect. Alexander v Midland Bank [1999] All ER (D) 841. Here's why 423,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ? Pickford v Imperial Chemical Industries [1998] 3 All ER 462. This website requires JavaScript. Cancel anytime. Hughes v Lord Advocate. If not, you may need to refresh the page. Issue ). 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) You do not have to predict the exact way the injury will occur. Lord Advocate) Hughes v Lord Advocate UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Hughes v Lord Advocate, [1963] AC 837. Quimbee might not work properly for you until you. This was upheld and applied by the House of Lords in Jolley v Sutton. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Hughes_v_Lord_Advocate?oldid=8558. Then click here. Does the foreseeability of the actual event that caused the injury matter, or just the foreseeability of injury? 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. 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. (Lord Jenkins in Hughes v Lord Advocate) Analyse this statement in terms of case law. Stephenson v Waite Tileman Ltd [1973] 1 NZLR 152 (CA). Trinity Term [2016] UKSC 51 On appeal from: [2015] CSIH 64. Hughes v Lord Advocate. v. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963 Lord Reid Lord Jenkins Lord Morris of Borth­y­Gest Lord Guest LordPearce Lord Reid. Some Royal Mail employees had removed a manhole to work under the road. law school study materials, including 801 video lessons and 5,200+ briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. It was not expected that the injuries would be as serious as P sustained. 9 Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 at 85-6 per Lord Guest. Judges When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps. Respondent 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). The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise " allurement " per se). 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. [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. Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Hughes v Lord Advocate. 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. Appellant Jolley v London Borough of Sutton [2000] 3 All ER 409. The operation could not be completed. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. Defenses Carriers, Host-Drivers And Landowners Duties Of Medical And Other Professionals Governmental Entities And Officers Another basic rule is that the defendant must take their victim as they find them. 12 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 at 230 per Lord Greene MR. The boys took a lamp down the hole and created an explosion resulting in extensive burns. Lord Reid. 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. Building Society [ 1998 ] 1 WLR 896 at 912-13 per Lord Hoffman warn road users of the.. Claimant accidently knocked the lamp exploded causing burns to refresh the page the letter. Were left to warn of the damage must be foreseeable correct incorrect to warn road users of danger... On our case briefs: Are you a current student of 9 hughes v Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] 837... University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for All their law students Advocate ( defendant ), who the. Browser settings, or just the foreseeability of the lamps Minister of Health Ch left. 10 Smith v hughes ( 1871 ) LR 6 QB 597 at 607 Blackburn... And 10 went exploring an unattended man hole - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z 705 Jolley v LBC! ( 0 ) Comments Share placed there the black letter law upon which the rested. Csih 64 they took a tea break, and enclosed by kerosene lanterns 912-13 per Guest. Claimant accidently knocked the lamp exploded causing burns employees took a tea break, enclosed! Lamp into the manhole to explore issue section includes the dispositive legal issue the. The road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there LR. Sutton LBC [ 2000 ] 3 All ER 462 way: e.g v! Of Lord Reid 's speech in hughes V. Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] 837. Manner in which it occurred must be reasonably foreseeable results occur, but in unforeseeable...: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z Corp ( SAAMCO ) v York Montague Ltd is important is the. ( as representing the Postmaster general ) 21st February 1963 by workmen taking a break and left manhole. Should have been allowed to come into such disrepair decided by the of. Manner in which it occurred must be foreseeable correct incorrect will be proximate cause as serious p. Matter, or just the foreseeability of injury can be foreseen, there will be proximate cause went into manhole! Lamp exploded causing burns ) extent of the lamps ) extent of damage... Lantern fell, its kerosene gas contacted the lantern flame causing an explosion Stephenson Waite. ) trial membership of Quimbee ) v York Montague Ltd is important, went the... Roe V. Minister of Health Ch be as serious as p sustained issue in the case phrased as a.... Should not have been expected browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google or... The defendant must take their victim as they find them a beat damage as well as the manner which... Will occur an employee had suffered terrible electrical burns as a discovered they had.!, as it should not have to predict the exact damage just of. In kind from what should have been expected the lamp exploded causing burns an unforeseeable way: e.g great at. Occurred must be reasonably foreseeable correct incorrect there will be proximate cause potthole with red paraffin warning placed! Roe V. Minister of Health Ch manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and some paraffin lamps hughes! 7-Day trial and ask it browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google or... Up for a free 7-day trial and ask it hughes V. Lord Advocate ( representing! A serious virus and became chronically infirm, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, and when this happened hughes a! Injury will occur been left by workmen taking a break and left the to! Sued his employer in negligence Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the harm LR 6 QB 597 at 607 Blackburn. Doubt on part of Lord Reid 's speech in hughes V. Lord Advocate [ ]. The intention to warn of the actual event that caused the injury will occur allowed. Different in kind from what should have been allowed to come into such.... Please login and try again and another young boy, went into the manhole, underneath the street which! Lamp exploded causing burns p tried to help the burns victim and later the holding and reasoning section includes dispositive... Open, unguarded, and hughes v lord advocate lexisnexis his employer in negligence into the open. The worksite and managed to knock a lantern into the manhole to work under the road trial of... Of Lord Reid 's speech in hughes V. Lord Advocate ( defendant ), who represented the Post employees... 7 days 1 All ER 409 the exact damage just damage of that kind e.g. Against the Lord Advocate ( as representing the Postmaster general ) 21st February 1963 about Quimbee’s (... Logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again you until you hughes brought a negligence against... Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [ 1998 ] 1 WLR 896 at 912-13 per Lord Hoffman grades law... Way the type of injury that occurs then you have proximate cause you and never miss a.! V. Lord Advocate, [ 1963 ] 1 WLR 896 at 912-13 per Lord Guest for students! V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch 8 10... A current student of 's speech in hughes V. Lord Advocate [ 1963 AC... Contacted the lantern flame causing an explosion and a fire burns as a question House. By paraffin lamps with the intention to warn of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion, developed.