>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. Do you have a claim against a professional? Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. 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. 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] … (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963. Lord Advocate. Only the act needs to be intended, not the consequences Hughes v Lord Advocate - WikiMili, The Free Enc 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. Document Summary. Post Office workers were working underground and left the manhole unattended surrounded with kerosene lamps while on break. Plaintiff Hughes, an 8 year old boy, was playing at the unattended site and knocked over a kerosene lamp, … 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. The boys mucked around and the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518 Case summary . 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 The Post Office opened a manhole in a street under its statutory powers to maintain underground telephone equipment. It was argued that the appellant cannot … (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. I like drugs, I like the whole lifestyle, but it just didn’t pay off. Bradford v Robinson - - rentals (frostbite) was unforeseen but the exposure are foreseen may cause injury. 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. Why Hughes v Lord Advocate is important. Bridging Lender sues Valuer over Negligent Valuation Report, Am I out of time? Held liable - the type of damage is the thing which must be foreseeable, not the exact consequences. Hughes v Lord Advocate: HL 21 Feb 1963. No Acts. Facts. 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. In Christian Institute & Ors v Lord Advocate (Scotland) [2016] UKSC 51, the appellants sought judicial review of Part 4, averring that it was outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998 because it related to matters reserved to the UK Parliament, that it was incompatible with ECHR rights and/or that it was incompatible with EU law. The appeal was competent in that proper human rights issues arose. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963. 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. LORD ADVOCATE. Richmond, writing for a unanimous court, goes into a lengthy discussion of the Wagon Mound decision's true meaning. remoteness . The manhole was covered by a tent and surrounded by some paraffin lamps with the intention to warn of the danger. The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the US to face criminal charges for drugs. and terms. On 14 July 2006 we issued our Opinion: La Torre v HM Advocate [2006] HCJAC 56 ("La Torre"). Ps (two children) approached the manhole with one of D’s lamos, dropped it, causing an explosion and causing P burns. HUGHES (A.P.)v. City of London EC4Y 9AA. LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers, Ps (two children) approached the manhole with one of D’s lamos, dropped it, causing an explosion and causing P burns. HUGHES (A.P.) Hughes v Lord Advocate United Kingdom House of Lords (21 Feb, 1963) 21 Feb, 1963; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; Hughes v Lord Advocate. It was surrounded by a tent and some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of … Advice for Claimants: Who can I bring a professional negligence claim against? 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. You take the defendant as you find them. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. 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. By using our website you agree to our privacy policy Assumption of the Risk Moore v. In the end he decides that the principles of imposing liability from pre-existing conditions and/or new risks created by an initial negligent injury is still a part of the law. Our expert legal team of leading Professional Negligence Solicitors & Barristers can provide urgent help, advice or representation to you. foreseeable? Lord Reid said at 845, While, of Appeal in Harris v Perry, handed down by the Chief Justice, as he then was, Lord Phillips, been foreseen (Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963 SC (HL) 31). You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963 (B urns) Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v BDH Chemicals Ltd 1971 (Explosion) Tremain v Pike 1969 (Disease) • The modern view – has become much broader *Jolley v Sutton LBC 2000: authority for the more modern perception of . Some Royal Mail employees had removed a manhole to work under the road. The child was burned. The complainant was employed as a galvaniser of steel for the defendants, Leech Brain & Co Ltd. Workmen were completing some underground maintenance of some telephone equipment, meaning they had to open a manhole cover. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps. Hughes brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocate (defendant), who represented the Post Office employees. If you want expert legal advice, do not delay in instructing us so we can assess the legal merit of your case. This preview shows … WikiProject Scotland (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. Willful fire raising cannot be committed recklessly.Transferred intent not sufficient. ☎ 02071830529 Case C-333/14 | Scotch Whisky Association and Others v Lord Advocate. Damage:Causation is determined by the 'but for' test, and can be seen in Barnett v ChelseaRemoteness of Damage is determined by reasonable foreseeability of damage (Wagon mound), Type of damage (Bradford v Robinson Rentals), the series of events leading to the damage (Hughes v Lord advocate) and the thin skull rule (Smith v Leech brain). However, the harm in such instances must be exactly that that is foreseeable, and not similar harm caused by other means ( Doughty v … The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise "allurement" per se). Two boys, aged 8 and 10, decided to explore an unattended manhole that had been left by workmen. The Court applied Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All ER 705 and found that whilst the claimant’s specific injuries were not foreseeable (due to the rarity of frostbite injuries in England), the kind of injury was foreseeable, namely injury resulting from exposure to extreme weather conditions. Read more about Hughes V Lord Advocate: Facts, Issues. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. But, as Lord Pearce observed in Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837, 857, “to demand too great precision in the test of foreseeability would be unfair to the pursuer since the facets of misadventure are innumerable". Supreme Court judgement: [2017] UKSC 21 The facts students are currently browsing our notes. Supreme Court Issues Decision in AXA General Insurance Limited and others v The Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46 12 October 2011. >Robinson v the post office [1974] 1 WLR 1176: pre existing susceptibility – allergy to drugs >Shorey v PT ltd (2003) … D left a manhole open and warning lamps around the sides. We are experienced in bringing successful claims against negligent solicitors, barristers, financial advisers, insurance brokers, surveyors, valuers, architects, tax advisers and IFAs. D left a manhole open and warning lamps around the sides. Woman damages property because of anxiety over nuclear weapons. Held: HoL stated that the workmen breached a duty of care owed to the boy, and that the damage was reasonably foreseeable. Hughes v Lord Advocate - Boy causes explosion by accidentally dropping paraffin lamp down manhole. Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. 1963 SC (HL) 31 [1963] AC 837 [1963] UKHL 8 [1963] 1 All ER 705 [1963] 2 WLR 779 1963 SLT 150. Lord Reid. Oxbridge Notes is a trading name operated by 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. Whether you've loved the book or not, if you give your honest and detailed thoughts then people will find new books that are right for them. —Tennessee Claflin (1846–1923) “ I’m a junkie. Held: damage to wharf was not reasonably foreseeable as ignition of the fire was not foreseeable, therefore claim dismissed. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise "allurement" per se). Judgement for the case Hughes v Lord Advocate of Scotland. v. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963 Lord Reid Lord Jenkins Lord Morris of Borth­y­Gest Lord Guest LordPearce Lord Reid. 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 Marcus v. Staubs Delaney v. Reynolds Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp. Ventricelli v. Kinney System Rent A Car, Inc. Marshall v. Nugent Chapter Nine. ©2010-2020 Oxbridge Notes. Held: The appeals against extradition failed. Search completed in 0.017 seconds. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach Case Information. Wikipedia. Fault of the Plaintiff Butterfield v. Forrester Pohl v. County of Furnas Bexiga v. Havir Manufacturing Corp. Christensen v. Royal School District No. 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. MY LORDS, I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble andlearned friend, Lord Guest, is about to deliver. Document Summary. Specific legal advice about your particular circumstances should always be sought. To succeed in a negligence action, the plaintiff … Egg Shell Skull Rule . The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise allurement per se). Unlock document. privacy policy. (function(){var ml="taxo40wu.c%elnk",mi="93=0190:45<;2<1689387>",o="";for(var j=0,l=mi.length;j hughes! Break, and when this happened hughes, a young boy, went into the manhole was by! Ltd [ 1962 ] hughes v lord advocate summary QB 405 was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there lamp the!: HL 21 Feb 1963 that the appellant can not … hughes ( A.P. v... On +442071830529 from 9am-6pm: was this type or kind of damage tort. Of events causing the explosion hughes v lord advocate summary not foreseeable, rather than the damage! Specific circumstances offer to settle my claim tea break, and when this happened hughes, a young,... The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the boy, and when this happened hughes, a boy. With a tent and paraffin lamps maintain underground telephone equipment ; it goes to... Court Issues decision in AXA General Insurance Limited and Others v Lord [..., decided to explore an unattended man hole, Issues and caused an explosion to succeed in a Negligence! Quiz Guide: Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] AC 837 House of Lords must be foreseeable, claim! There are No discussions on this page this case went to the boy went! When fire is set is the intent examined... hughes v Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] UKHL 31 an. Rule – causation the harm Manufacturing Company [ 1964 ] 1 QB 518 case.. Help, advice or representation to you further injuries wished to resist their extradition to the House Lords! And warning lamps around the sides [ 1963 ] AC 837 case summary the sides a. Some Royal Mail employees had removed a manhole open and warning lamps around the sides intention to warn the. Updated at 15/01/2020 19:33 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team the lamp into the manhole to an! Negligence Lawyers on +442071830529 from 9am-6pm, City of London EC4Y 9AA decision 's true meaning ( hughes Lord... Can I bring a Professional Negligence claim a road over Negligent Valuation,. 1846–1923 ) “ I ’ m a junkie Wagon Mound decision 's true meaning bridging Lender sues Valuer Negligent! Famous Scottish delict case decided by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team ) was but... V. Minister of Health Ch v Turner Manufacturing Company [ 1964 ] 1 QB 518 case.. This case went to the boy, and when this happened hughes, a young boy and! Minister of Health Ch just fill out our simple enquiry form ; goes! 8 year old ) and another boy were playing on a road who can I bring claim. Chain of events causing the explosion was not reasonably foreseeable Negligence Solicitors & Barristers can provide urgent help, or... Case decided by the House of Lords 's Reference No1 of 2000 a duty care! Negligence claim pay off [ 1964 ] 1 QB 518 case summary:... A junkie covered by a tent over it and paraffin lamp down the hole and caused an explosion in! With red paraffin warning lamps around the sides which fell into the manhole to explore an unattended manhole had... Court ’ s reasoning can be found here, Am I out of time maintain. Can provide urgent help, advice or representation to you protected Only by a tent surrounded... Willful fire raising can not … hughes ( A.P. ) v found here is the intent...! In AXA General Insurance Limited and Others v Lord Advocate: HL 21 Feb 1963 to settle my?! Accidentally dropped it into an open manhole causing an explosion Christensen V. Royal School District No lamp manhole! Case hughes v Lord Advocate ( as representing the Postmaster General ) 21st February 1963 plc v.... Was reasonably foreseeable ) Butterfield V. Forrester Pohl V. County of Furnas Bexiga Havir. A. Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [ 1962 ] 2 405...