This rule may operate in two ways. A child climbed down the hole. v. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963 Lord Reid Lord Jenkins Lord Morris of Borth­y­Gest Lord Guest LordPearce Lord Reid. One boy fell in and the lamp exploded causing burns. The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. 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) Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Therefore, the injury is not different in kind from what should have been expected. 11 Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 at 912-13 per Lord Hoffman. P tried to help the burns victim and later. That both the type of the damage as well as the manner in which it occurred must be reasonably foreseeable correct incorrect. That the extent of the damage must be foreseeable correct incorrect. Occupational stress. This website requires JavaScript. The Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal Mail. 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. 1963. Judges. The claimant suffered severe burns. The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Two boys, aged 8 and 10, decided to explore an unattended manhole that had been left by workmen. The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. The procedural disposition (e.g. Hughes v Lord Advocate established which principle? Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school. 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. Trinity Term [2016] UKSC 51 On appeal from: [2015] CSIH 64. result of d"s negligence. As long as you can foresee in a general way the type of injury that occurs then you have proximate cause. P suffered a rare form of schizophrenia, and sued his employer in negligence. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. Facts: an employee had suffered terrible electrical burns as a discovered they had died. 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, [1963] AC 837. 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: statement of principle. Remoteness of damage in tort law; that the kind of damage must be foreseeable, rather than the specific damage that actually occurred.. Facts. Hughes brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocate (defendant), who represented the Post Office employees. Hughes, a young boy They had marked it clearly as dangerous. Post Office employees were working in a manhole, underneath the street. 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. No contracts or commitments. 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. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. Secondly, Lord Woolf M.R. [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. Hughes v Lord Advocate: rule . The employees took a break and left the manhole open, unguarded, and enclosed by kerosene lanterns. Cancel anytime. Country Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law of negligence. The defendants left a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. 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. Appellant. Lords Reid, Jenkins, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, and Pearce Hughes v Lord Advocate, [1963] AC 837 You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate Wagon Mound Bradford v Robinson Van Rentals. As long as the general type of injury can be foreseen, there will be proximate cause. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. Hughes v Lord Advocate. Hughes (plaintiff) and another young boy entered the worksite and managed to knock a lantern into the manhole. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] A.C. 837 Two young boys were playing near an unattended manhole surrounded by paraffin lamps. 1963 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. Read more about Quimbee. If not, you may need to refresh the page. 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.