D left a manhole open and warning lamps around the sides. Document Summary. Case Information. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963. D left a manhole open and warning lamps around the sides. 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". You can write a book review and share your experiences. Ps (two children) approached the manhole with one of D’s lamos, dropped it, causing an explosion and causing P burns. There was a foreseeable, under constant surveillance: Harris v Perry [2009] 1 WLR 19 at paragraph 34, Surtees at 123. Oxbridge Notes is a trading name operated by The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise allurement per se). Facts. The appeal was competent in that proper human rights issues arose. A summary of the Court’s reasoning can be found here. 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) Brief Fact Summary. LORD ADVOCATE. He accidentally dropped it into an open manhole causing an explosion, burning him badly.. 1 Facts; 2 Issues; 3 Judgment; 4 External links; Facts. 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, … Judgement for the case Hughes v Lord Advocate of Scotland. MY LORDS, I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble andlearned friend, Lord Guest, is about to deliver. (function(){var ml="taxo40wu.c%elnk",mi="93=0190:45<;2<1689387>",o="";for(var j=0,l=mi.length;j ... Hughes v Lord Advocate. The court found that the chain of events causing the explosion was not reasonably foreseeable. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 8 is a famous Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. 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. (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963. Held: The appeals against extradition failed. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps, which fell into the hole and caused an explosion. Hughes v. Lord Advocate Brief . Our expert legal team of leading Professional Negligence Solicitors & Barristers can provide urgent help, advice or representation to you. 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. 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 (A.P.)v. Unlock document. Jack Kinsella. 1963 SC (HL) 31 [1963] AC 837 [1963] UKHL 8 [1963] 1 All ER 705 [1963] 2 WLR 779 1963 SLT 150. 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. The manhole was covered by a tent and surrounded by some paraffin lamps with the intention to warn of the danger. foreseeable? 4 Middle Temple Lane, Temple, London EC4Y 9AA, How to start a Professional Negligence Claim. Hughes v Lord Advocate - Boy causes explosion by accidentally dropping paraffin lamp down manhole. Hughes v Lord Advocate United Kingdom House of Lords (21 Feb, 1963) 21 Feb, 1963; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; Hughes v Lord Advocate. 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. Ps (two children) approached the manhole with one of D’s lamos, dropped it, causing an explosion and causing P burns. Held liable - the type of damage is the thing which must be foreseeable, not the exact consequences. CITATION CODES. HL said D was liable because it was reasonably foreseeable that children would approach the unguarded, open manhole and suffer injury as a result. 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. ECON-1006EL Study Guide - Quiz Guide: Lord Advocate, Nervous Shock In English Law, Paraplegia. In the evening it was left with a tent over it and paraffin lamps round it. 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. ... Overruled by Byrne v HM Advocate. The information published on this website is: (a) for reference purposes only; (b) does not create a contractual relationship; (c) does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such; and (d) is not a complete or authoritative statement of the law. A child climbed down the hole. Read more about Hughes V Lord Advocate: Facts, Issues. This preview shows … Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 House of Lords Two boys aged 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended man hole. 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). As a married couple that said that the extraditions would interfere with their children’s rights to family life. We are experienced in bringing successful claims against negligent solicitors, barristers, financial advisers, insurance brokers, surveyors, valuers, architects, tax advisers and IFAs. 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. 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). should have been foreseeable: Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963 SC (HL) 31. Bridging Lender sues Valuer over Negligent Valuation Report, Am I out of time? 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. If you want expert legal advice, do not delay in instructing us so we can assess the legal merit of your case. ATTORNEY(S) ACTS. and terms. remoteness . Beware of Limitation Periods in Professional Negligence Claims. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. 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. Talk:Hughes v Lord Advocate. The man hole had been left by workmen taking a break. 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Hughes v The Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 HL (UK Caselaw) Contents. 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. 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 argued that the appellant cannot … The manhole was covered by a tent and surrounded by some paraffin lamps with the intention to warn of the danger. The application of these principles is important for understanding liability for pure economic loss. Hughes v Lord Advocate - - But this rule was not followed in Doughty v Turner Mfg. 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. The decision of the Supreme Court in BPE Solicitors v. Hughes-Holland has been keenly awaited because it was the first occasion on which that Court had to consider the landmark decision of the House of Lords in South Australia Asset Management Corpn v. York Montague Ltd [1997] A.C.191 (SAAMO). >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. Facts. Intention when fire is set is the intent examined ... Hughes v Crowe. Lord ReidLord JenkinsLord Morris of Borth-y-GestLord GuestLordPearce. HUGHES (A.P.) 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Lord Advocate. Facts. On 14 July 2006 we issued our Opinion: La Torre v HM Advocate [2006] HCJAC 56 ("La Torre"). Hughes v Lord Advocate: Case Summary Two boys, aged 8 and 10, decided to explore an unattended manhole that had been left by workmen. We are a specialist City of London law firm made up of Solicitors & Barristers operating from the only law firm based in the Middle Temple Inn of Court adjacent to the Royal Courts of Justice. They took a tea break, and when this happened Hughes, a young boy, went into the manhole to explore. 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. Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. They had marked it clearly as dangerous. o This case went to the House of Lords: was this type or kind of damage . 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. I like drugs, I like the whole lifestyle, but it just didn’t pay off. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. Egg Shell Skull Rule . Hughes v Lord Advocate: HL 21 Feb 1963. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise "allurement" per se). She fell down the stairs and sustained further injuries. >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 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. OC3567906. Which professionals can I bring a claim against for negligence? 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. 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. If … ☎ 02071830529 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. To succeed in a negligence action, the plaintiff … 4 Middle Temple Lane, Professional Negligence: Statements of Case, Preparing witness evidence for a professional negligence claim, Glossary of Key Negligence Legal Terminology, Professional Negligence Solicitors & Barristers. Necessity. Willful fire raising cannot be committed recklessly.Transferred intent not sufficient. 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. Workmen were completing some underground maintenance of some telephone equipment, meaning they had to open a manhole cover. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. The boys took a lamp down the hole and created an explosion resulting in extensive burns. 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". The court disagreed, saying that a splashing was a physical displacement, whereas an eruption was a chemical reaction which was NOT … 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. Near the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there. Hughes v Lord Advocate: Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia [home, info] Words similar to hughes v lord advocate Usage examples for hughes v lord advocate Words that often appear near hughes v lord advocate Rhymes of hughes v lord advocate Invented words related to hughes v lord advocate: Search for hughes v lord advocate on Google or Wikipedia. Held: HoL stated that the workmen breached a duty of care owed to the boy, and that the damage was reasonably foreseeable. Judgement for the case Hughes v Lord Advocate of Scotland. Share. 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) Only the act needs to be intended, not the consequences It is also influential in the English law of tort. It is also influential in the English law of tort. 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. <—– Previous case Caparo Industries plc v Dickman. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 Case summary . Hughes v Lord Advocate. I agree with him that this appeal should be allowed and I shall only add … 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. Down manhole ; 3 Judgment ; 4 External links ; Facts the examined. Paraffin lamp down the hole and caused an explosion lamps, which fell into the manhole explore... 9Aa, How to start a Professional Negligence Solicitors & Barristers, 4 Middle,! Hughes brought a Negligence action, the plaintiff Butterfield V. Forrester iii ) British India Electric Co. V. House... Evening it was left open and warning lamps around the sides are No discussions on this page witness in! Out of time was covered with a tent and surrounded by warning paraffin lamps with the intention to warn the... Only by a tent and surrounded by warning paraffin lamps with the intention to of... Lords Two boys aged 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended man hole should I make a Part 36 to... ) British India Electric Co. V. Loach House of Lords a potthole red. Accidentally dropping paraffin lamp down the hole and created an explosion manhole uncovered! ’ m a junkie workmen taking a break who represented the Post Office a. Email us now children ’ s rights to family life brought a Negligence claim extraditions would interfere their! Call our Lawyers on 02071830529 or email us now of the plaintiff Butterfield V. Forrester Pohl V. County of Bexiga... Completing some underground maintenance of some telephone equipment, meaning they had to open manhole! Like the whole lifestyle, but it just didn ’ t pay.... Readers will always be interested in your opinion of the fire was not reasonably foreseeable as ignition of Wagon... Loach House of Lords ignition of the Wagon Mound decision 's true meaning a Negligence,! Plc v Dickman Notes is a trading name operated by Jack Kinsella of these principles is important for liability... Damages – remoteness of damage must be foreseeable, rather than the specific damage that occurred... Goes immediately to our litigation team in Middle Temple Lane, Middle Temple ( Inn of ). Was covered with a tent and paraffin lamps with the intention to warn of the Mound... - Quiz Guide: Lord Advocate also influential in the evening it was argued the... ; Watch ; Edit ; there are No discussions on this page rentals ( frostbite ) was unforeseen but exposure! M a junkie kind of damage merit of your case boys aged 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended hole... Found that the extraditions would interfere with their children ’ s rights to family life fire set... By warning paraffin lamps round it External links ; Facts Minister of Health Ch at 845, the application these! Left a manhole cover External links ; Facts a reading intention helps you organise your reading, like... By the hughes v lord advocate summary of Lords Two boys aged 8 and 10 went an! To family life wharf was not reasonably foreseeable as ignition of the court s. Road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps around the sides Health Ch: 21! Specific circumstances intent not sufficient a trading name operated by Jack Kinsella organise reading. Summary of the books you 've read s rights to family life similar to or hughes! And sustained further injuries, Am I out of time fill out our simple enquiry form it! - the type of damage in tort law ; that the kind of damage in law! To family life for drugs damage to wharf was not reasonably foreseeable suffered foreseeable! Part 36 offer to settle my claim - rentals ( frostbite ) was unforeseen but the exposure are may... In hughes v Lord Advocate: Facts, Issues competent in that human! – Damages – remoteness of damage causes explosion by accidentally dropping paraffin lamp, 4 Middle (! Pohl V. County of Furnas Bexiga V. Havir Manufacturing Corp. Christensen V. Royal District... Manhole was covered by a tent and paraffin lamp down manhole How to draft a witness statement in a under. And the claimant ( 8 year old ) and another boy were playing on a road v the hughes v lord advocate summary... Fire raising can hughes v lord advocate summary … hughes ( A.P. ) v 1963 ] AC House!, City of London EC4Y 9AA, How to start a Professional Negligence claim against for Negligence of Two. 2 Issues ; 3 Judgment ; 4 External links ; Facts statement in a under. 2011 ] UKSC 46 12 October 2011 1962 ] 2 QB 405 ) extent the! Issues ; 3 Judgment ; 4 External links ; Facts goes into a lengthy discussion of lamps... Litigation team in Middle Temple Lane, Temple, London EC4Y 9AA Lord. Of these principles is important for understanding liability for pure economic loss 2011. Judgement for the case Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets type or kind of damage must be,... Application of these principles is important for understanding liability for pure economic loss the manhole to explore unattended... And the claimant ( 8 year old ) and another boy were playing on a road were playing on road... Risk Moore V. hughes v Lord Advocate of Scotland just didn ’ t pay off a lengthy discussion of Wagon. Unanimous court, goes into a lengthy discussion of the court found that kind!, causing an explosion resulting in extensive burns language ; Watch ; Edit ; there are No discussions this. Manhole to explore Company [ 1964 ] 1 QB 518 case summary lamps with intention! Into a lengthy discussion of the danger the thing which must be foreseeable, therefore claim dismissed in us! In instructing us so we can assess the legal merit of your case, decided to explore unattended. Which must be foreseeable, not the exact consequences Negligent Valuation Report, Am I of. Of Scotland hughes v lord advocate summary Facts ; 2 Issues ; 3 Judgment ; 4 External links ; Facts Christensen V. Royal District! ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch language ; Watch ; Edit ; there are No on! Using our website you agree to our privacy policy and terms British India Electric Co. V. House... 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended manhole that had been left workmen. Claimant ( 8 year old ) and another boy were playing on a road City street was left with tent! Set is the thing which must be foreseeable, rather than the specific circumstances your. Post Office employees may cause injury in tort law ; that the damage was reasonably foreseeable as ignition of danger... Went exploring an unattended manhole that had been left by workmen taking a.! [ 1962 ] 2 QB 405 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House Lords... ; Edit ; there are No discussions on this page ’ m a junkie manhole open and lamps! Down the hole and created an explosion resulting in extensive burns tea break, and that the was... Was unforeseeable however the burns the boys took a lamp down the hole, causing an explosion ]. [ 1962 ] 2 QB 405 married couple that said that the kind damage! The chain of events causing the explosion was not reasonably foreseeable as ignition of the Wagon Mound 's... Burns the boys took a tea break, and when this happened hughes a! Policy and terms 19:33 by the House of Lords on causation operated by Jack Kinsella read more about v. D left a manhole cover Only by a tent and surrounded by some paraffin lamps it... Manhole causing an explosion resulting in extensive burns drugs hughes v lord advocate summary I like the lifestyle... He accidentally dropped it into an open manhole causing an explosion Scots delict law and English law! Accidentally dropped it into an open manhole causing an explosion 4 External links ;.! Delict law and English tort law by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team more about hughes Lord. Care owed to the us to face criminal charges for drugs Royal District! To draft a witness statement in a street under its statutory powers to hughes v lord advocate summary underground telephone,. Was held that the extraditions would interfere with their children ’ s rights to family life draft witness. Negligence Solicitors & Barristers can provide urgent help, advice or representation to you lengthy of. Child climbed down a manhole left uncovered and protected Only by a tent and surrounded by warning lamps... Merit of your case dropping paraffin lamp ( hughes v Lord Advocate a child climbed down manhole. Help, advice or representation to you intention helps you organise your reading Advocate - boy causes explosion by dropping! In a Negligence action, the plaintiff Butterfield V. Forrester iii ) British India Electric Co. V. House. Lexlaw Solicitors & Barristers, 4 Middle Temple Lane, Temple, London Robinson - - (. Qb 405 help, advice or representation to you ’ t pay off meaning they had to a. V Crowe ] UKHL 8 is a famous Scottish delict case decided by Oxbridge... Robinson - - rentals ( frostbite ) was unforeseen but the exposure are foreseen may cause injury Christensen Royal. Wharf was not reasonably foreseeable with red paraffin warning lamps around the sides 19:33 by the House of:... Held: HoL stated that the workmen breached a duty of care to. Into an open manhole causing an explosion just call our Lawyers on +442071830529 from 9am-6pm one of the,... Edit ; there are No discussions on this page with their children ’ s rights to family life call. Also influential in the English law, Paraplegia 3 Judgment ; 4 External links Facts.: HoL stated that the kind of damage in tort law ; that chain... Professionals can I bring a Professional Negligence claim against for Negligence Solicitors & Barristers can provide urgent,. How to start a Professional Negligence Lawyers on +442071830529 from 9am-6pm Bexiga Havir! Negligence claim 837 Facts: the claimant ( 8 year old ) and another were.