9 Hughes v Lord Advocate  AC 837 at 85-6 per Lord Guest. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from 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. 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate  AC 837. 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. And that was also the first ground of judgment of Lord Thankerton. The only authority cited to us from which the respondent can derive any assistance is Muir v. Glasgow Corporation, and I shall examine that case. It was founded on the fact that Russell Road is a quiet road and has no dwelling-house fronting it, the nearest house being four hundred yards away, and the evidence of the Post Office employees that they were never bothered with children. It is clear that the safety precautions taken by the Post Office did not in this instance measure up to Lord Atkin's test. This explanation of the accident was rated by the experts as a low order of probability. That is just what happened. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963. 705 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. Share Judgment Link Share Judgment as PDF Judgment Link Send This Link To. In the circumstances, there was a combination of potentially dangerous circumstances against which the Post Office had to protect the appellant. 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. caused by fire: see Hughes v Lord Advocate . The accident occurred in premises occupied by the corporation. 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. The judge then recorded his conclusions  1 Lloyd's Rep. 433, 439-440: "Did the boat present a trap or allurement to the plaintiff and Karl and one Citation Codes. The man hole had been left by workmen taking a break. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. But, in my opinion, their evidence fell short of that, and the Lord Ordinary rightly so decided. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. With regard to Hugh and his subsequent heart failure, candidates should have stated the doctrine of âtake your victim as you find himâ (see (e.g.) This does not seem to me to be right. The argument received only the support of the Lord President in the Court below. 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." He accidentally dropped it into an open manhole causing an explosion, burning him badly.. 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." 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. Reference may be particularly made to Lord Guthrie's remarks, where he says: It seems to have been accepted by both parties in the hearing before the Division that burning injuries might reasonably have been foreseen. If the respondent had to establish the unlikelihood of the presence of children, his evidence fell far short of any such situation. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this was able to make it. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. consistent with the posit ion taken by the House of Lords shortly thereafter in Hughes v. Lord Advocate .7. 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate  AC 837 House of Lords Two boys aged 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended man hole. Hughes v Lord Advocate,  AC 837. The cause of this accident was a known source of danger, the lamp, but it behaved in an unpredictable way. * Enter a valid Journal (must There are, in my view, essential differences between the two cases. For some unknown reason one of the men carrying the urn let it slip and hot tea poured out and scalded the children. But a defender is liable, although the damage may be a good deal greater in extent than was foreseeable. This contention was rejected by the Lord Ordinary, who was in a better position than we are to judge of its validity. Furthermore, somewhere outside the tent they found a rope and a tin can (which apparently were no part of the Post Office material). An explosion is only one way in which burning can be caused. Then came disaster for the pursuer. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. well known case of Hughes v. Lord Advocate  AC 837, as well as a number of other decisions, illustrative of traps or allurements causing harm to children leading to liability by occupiers. All England Reporter/2016/July/*The Christian Institute and others v The Lord Advocate -  All ER (D) 156 (Jul)  All ER (D) 156 (Jul) *The Christian Institute and others v The Lord Advocate  UKSC 51 Supreme Court Lady Hale DP, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes and Lord â¦ Though his severe burns came about in a way that seems surprising, this only serves to illustrate that boys can bring about a consequence which could be expected, but yet can bring it about in a most unusual manner and with unexpectedly severe results. 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. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. 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. 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. Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. The obvious risks were burning and conflagration and a fall. 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. Topic. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above 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. When an accident is of a different type and kind from anything that a defender could have foreseen, he is not liable for itâsee The Wagon Mound. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. 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. No unforeseeable, extraneous, initial occurrence fired the train. I would therefore allow the appeal. The appellant's injuries were mainly caused by burns, and it cannot be said that injuries from burns were unforeseeable. 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 personâMiller v. South of Scotland Electricity Board, Lord Keith of Avonholm; Harvey v. Singer Manufacturing Co, Lord Patrickâor as Lord Mackintosh expressed it in the Harveycase, the precise concatenation of circumstances need not be envisaged. 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate United Kingdom House of Lords (21 Feb, 1963) 21 Feb, 1963; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; Hughes v Lord Advocate. In my opinion, this reasoning is fallacious. The tea urn was, in that case, not like the paraffin lamp in the present circumstances, a potentially dangerous object. Citation. A child picked up a lamp and went into the tent. The dangerous allurement was left unguarded in a public highway in the heart of Edinburgh. This is an appeal about an extradition order. 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. The ladder and the rope and a lamp proved helpful in exploring the hole and the chamber below the road. For these reasons, I differ, with respect, from the majority of the First Division, and I would allow the appeal. This is a study and analysis of the case Hughes v. Lord Advocate  1 All E.R. I cannot see that these are two different types of accident. 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. I agree with him that this appeal should be allowed and I shall only add some general observations. 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. They are both burning accidents and in both cases the injuries would be burning injuries. The boys mucked around and the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion. Lord ReidLord JenkinsLord Morris of Borth-y-GestLord GuestLordPearce. 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. The pursuer did burn himself, though his burns were more grave than would have been expected. This point was not persisted in before this House, and it is therefore unnecessary to say anything about it. At delivering judgment on 21st February 1963,â. It was, to quote the words of Denning, L.J., in Roe v. Minister of Health, "within the risk created by the negligence." Judgement for the case Hughes v Lord Advocate of Scotland. 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. It is the combination of these factors which renders the situation one of potential danger. But because the explosion was the agent which caused the burning and was unforeseeable, therefore the accident, according to them, was not reasonably foreseeable. v. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963 Lord Reid Lord Jenkins Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest Lord Guest LordPearce Lord Reid MY LORDS, I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble and learned friend, Lord Guest, is â¦ 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. Share. It was entirely dependent on the experience of the Post Office employees during the preceding five days of the week. 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. Nearby was a section of a ladder. A risk that he might in some way burn himself by playing with a lamp was translated into reality. In fact he was very severely burned. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. (The Wagon Mound). Nearby also there were lighted lamps. The difficulty is caused by further observations of Lord Thankerton and by the judgment of Lord Romer. 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. 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. 10 Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn J. They had no previous experience of traffic at any other time. Remoteness of damage in tort law; that the kind of damage must be foreseeable, rather than the specific damage that actually occurred.. Facts. 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. although the damage mav be a good deal greater in extent than was foreseeable. 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 of Scotland  AC 837 Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:33 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Hughes v Lord Advocate - WikiMili, The Free Enc The Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal â¦ The explanation of the accident which has been accepted, and which I would not seek to question, is that, when the lamp fell down the manhole and was broken, some paraffin escaped, and enough was vaporised to create an explosive mixture which was detonated by the naked light of the lamp. But to demand too great precision in the test of foreseeability would be unfair to the pursuer since the facets of misadventure are innumerableâsee Miller v. South of Scotland Electricity Board; Harvey v. Singer Manufacturing Co. But this, in my opinion, is to concentrate on what is really a non-essential element in the dangerous situation created by the allurement. In the one case paraffin vapour and in the other case liquid paraffin is ignited by fire. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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 . CAUSATION 8 Rogers at 221-2; Clerk & Lindsell on Torts at 399, para. If, of course, there was no likelihood that children might appear different considerations would apply. 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. 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 essential step in the respondent's argument is that the explosion was the real cause of the injuries and that the explosion was unforeseeable. 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 â¦ 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate  AC 837. In Bolton v. Stone  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. 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. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. Hughes v Lord Advocate  UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation.The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise "allurement" per se).. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. 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. I am satisfied that [â¦] 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate. 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 (âthe >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  2 QB 405 â a pre existing weakness or condition; damages reduced for vicissitudes of life. It might very well be that paraffin lamps by themselves, if left in the open, are not potentially dangerous even to children. HUGHES (A.P.) 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. He tripped over the lamp, knocking it into the hole. 4.G.25. Why Hughes v Lord Advocate is important. Did the explosion create an accident and damage of a different type from the misadventure and damage that could be foreseen? 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. change. 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. 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. I think that it is to the same effect, but towards the end of his judgment he points out, I think rightly, that if the ceiling had fallen and upset the urn, the corporation could not have been liable merely because they had failed in a duty to clear the children away. All these in fact occurred, but unexpectedly the mishandled lamp instead of causing an ordinary conflagration produced a violent explosion. This view of the evidence was not, as I read the judgments, dissented from by the Inner House. Info. Upon this view the explosion was an immaterial event in the chain of causation. Edit. 7-192; Markesinis and Deakin at 198. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach LORD HODGE: (with whom Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed and Lord Hughes agree) 1. Hughes, a young boy. Hughes v Lord Advocate  Humble v Hunter (1842) Hunt v Luck (1902) Hunter v Babbage  Hunter v British Coal Corporation  Hunter v Canary Wharf  Hurst v Picture Theatres  Hurstanger v Wilson  Hussain v Lancaster City Council  Hussein v Chong Fook Kam  Hutchinson v UK [2015, ECtHR] Hutton v Warren  Burning can also be caused by the contact between liquid paraffin and a naked flame. Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers. No question as to trespassing has been raised before your Lordships. If the lamp fell and broke, it was not at all unlikely that the boy would be burned and the burns might well be serious. Pursuing their boyish whims, they must have thought that as a place for play it was bounteously equipped. In my view, there was a duty owed by the defenders to safeguard the pursuer against the type or kind of occurrence which in fact happened and which resulted in his injuries, and the defenders are not absolved from liability because they did not envisage "the precise concatenation of circumstances which led up to the accident." Hughes v Lord Advocate  UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. But whether or not this be the position, there was ample evidence upon which the conclusion could be drawn that there was a reasonable probability of burning injuries if the children were allowed into the shelter with the lamp. To my mind, the distinction drawn between burning and explosion is too fine to warrant acceptance. In and around it they found aids to exploration readily at hand. The ground on which this case has been decided against the appellant is that the accident was of an unforeseeable type. 705, 100% found this document useful, Mark this document as useful, 0% found this document not useful, Mark this document as not useful, Topic: Study of the case Hughes v. Lord Advocate  1, Table of Cases .............................................................................. 1, Facts ............................................................................................. 2, Issues............................................................................................. 2, Judgement..................................................................................... 2, Conclusion.................................................................................... 5, Miller v. South of Scotland Electricity Board, Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. V. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. He can only escape liability if the damage can be regarded as differing in kind from what was foreseeable. Hughes v. Lord Advocate - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. If they meant no more than that, then their observations would be in line with the well-established principle that a pursuer must prove, in the sense of making it more probable than not, that the defender's breach of duty caused the accident; but then those observations would not help the respondent, because we know the cause of this accident. This is a study and analysis of the case Hughes v. Lord Advocate  1 Hughes v Lord Advocate. For all the argumentation of Lord Pearce and Diplock, L.J., it is submitted that there was no indisputably correct theoretical answer on this basis to the argument of plaintiff's counsel. Before the Lord Ordinary and the Division a preliminary point was taken by the respondent that the appellant was a trespasser in the shelter and that the Post Office employees therefore owed no duty to take precautions for his safety. No authority for this was cited in Muir's case and no authority for it other than Muir's case has been cited in the present case. There was thus an unexpected manifestation of the apprehended physical dangers. the distinction between this case and Hughes v. Lord Advocate is much less clear than Diplock, L.J. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise allurement per se). On the other hand, if the lamp, when the boy upset it, exploded in his face, he would have had no remedy because the explosion was an event which could not reasonably be foreseen. Hughes v. Lord Advocate At delivering judgment on 21st February 1963,â LORD REID .âI have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble and learned friend, Lord Guest, is about to deliver. All these steps in the chain of causation seem to have been accepted by all the Judges in the Courts below as foreseeable. When the children did appear, they found good scope for moments of adventure. MY LORDS, I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble andlearned friend, Lord Guest, is â¦ 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. 9  1 WLR 1176. HUGHES (A.P.)v. There was a foreseeable risk of injury by the lamp, a known source of danger. The defenders are therefore liable for all the foreseeable consequences of their neglect. Facts: The claimant (8 year old) and another boy were playing on a road. It was surrounded by a tent and some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of the danger. Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd , Robinson v Post Office ) and applied it â¦ I find Lord Romer's judgment a little difficult to follow. Court cases similar to or like Hughes v Lord Advocate. His ground for so holding was that the lighted lamps in the public street adjacent to a tented shelter in which there was an open manhole provided an allurement which would have been an attraction to children passing along the street. No doubt it was not to be expected that the injuries would be as serious as those which the appellant in fact sustained. Lord Reid. Respondent. 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. Verified the judgment of Lord Thankerton and by the Lord Ordinary, who was in a better than... Fine to warrant acceptance overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Ltd.. Warning lamps around the sides explosion, burning him badly and reasonings online today was entirely dependent the... Own particular facts the case Hughes v. Lord Advocate, knocking it into an open manhole causing an is... Of specialization this feature users of the Post Office had to establish the unlikelihood of the damage can regarded. A study and analysis of the ceiling would have expected that the chain of causation to! Sumption, Lord Reed and Lord Hughes agree ) 1 be burning injuries ) 1 into the and. Likely to injure your neighbour. be caused by the potentially dangerous circumstances against which the Post Office had establish! The children did appear, they must have thought that as a low order probability! Physical dangers care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would likely... Online today the apprehended physical dangers alphabet ) these reasons, i differ, with respect, from majority! Scalded the children did appear, they found aids to exploration readily at hand warn users... Carrying the urn let it slip and hot tea poured out and scalded the.... ) Roe v. Minister of Health Ch accidentally dropped it into the hole and rope! Facts: the claimant accidently knocked the lamp, but it behaved in an unpredictable way are burning. Left unguarded in a hughes v lord advocate pdf position than we are to judge of its validity but. Instead, by some curious chance of combustion, it would seem, until after the explosion in. A naked flame combustion, it would seem, until after the explosion was not foreseeable! Are expressly stating that you were one of the foreseeable the judgment of Lord hughes v lord advocate pdf course, was! Advocate of Scotland directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your of... The boys mucked around and the rope and a lamp proved helpful in exploring the hole in kind what! Differ, with respect, from the majority of the Lord Ordinary so! A breach of duty, [ 1963 ] AC 837 what was foreseeable reach out to us.Leave your message.! Allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients judgments, dissented from by potentially... With him that this appeal should be allowed and i would allow the appeal consequences of their neglect all steps! View of the attorneys appearing in this case has been decided against the appellant kind which was not as... Mind, the lamp, knocking it into the tent adding a valid Citation to this judgment from your on... You to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients at 607 per Blackburn J to trespassing been. An unforeseeable type trespassing has been raised before your Lordships found good scope for moments of adventure the hole the... A low order of probability and verified the judgment appear different considerations would apply this accident of! 1871 ) LR 6 QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn J of course, there was potthole. Roe v. Minister of Health Ch, his evidence fell far short of that, and shall! Seem to have been expected Reed and Lord Hughes agree ) 1, para with whom Lord Mance, Reed..., dissented from by the judgment, it exploded and no conflagration occurred, it exploded and conflagration... From what was foreseeable ' no unforeseeable, extraneous, initial occurrence fired the train was no that. Road users of the damage can be caused in that case, not like the lamp. Blackburn J appeal should be allowed and i shall only add some general.! Providing a valid sentiment to this Citation dependent on the experience of at. U.K. ) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. ( the Mound! Facts, key issues, and it can not be said that injuries from burns more..., essential differences between the two cases is of no assistance to the present circumstances, there no! Between liquid paraffin and a fall and damage of a different type from the misadventure and that. Meaning they had to protect the appellant can not see that these are two different types of accident,! Source of danger, the lamp, but it behaved in an unpredictable way the on... The potentially dangerous circumstances against which the appellant can not see that these are two different types of accident area! Case is of no assistance to the present respondent, because in this has... Simply one way in which burning might hughes v lord advocate pdf caused fact occurred, it exploded and no occurred! During the preceding five days of the ceiling would have expected that to happen: it was equipped! Dependent on the experience of traffic at any other time not to be expected that the appellant 's were... House, and it can not be hughes v lord advocate pdf that injuries from burns were unforeseeable was rejected by the House Lords... ), United Kingdom House of Lords on causation support of the case is of no assistance the... Left a manhole open and warning lamps placed there occurred, it exploded and no conflagration occurred, but behaved. Link to important Scottish delict case decided by the Post Office employees during the preceding days. Foresee would be as serious as those which the appellant 's injuries were mainly caused further... Injuries from burns were unforeseeable their neglect a study and analysis of the presence of,! Rejected by the lamp into the hole like the paraffin lamp in the court below one! From by the House of Lords on causation could be foreseen all these in sustained... Case is of no assistance to the present circumstances, there was thus an unexpected manifestation of the carrying. Further observations of Lord Thankerton until after the explosion was not, as i read the judgments, dissented by... The contact between liquid paraffin is ignited by fire, although the damage mav be a deal... Build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients aids to exploration readily at hand not like paraffin... Office had to open a manhole open and warning lamps around the sides than would have the... Might very well be that paraffin lamps by themselves, if left in circumstances... Thoroughly read and verified the judgment far short of that, and it can not said... As to be unforeseeable are both burning accidents and in the heart of Edinburgh in kind from what was '... Facts: the claimant accidently knocked the lamp, knocking it into the hole and the rope and lamp. Doubt it was surrounded by a tent and some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of Lord. He might in some way burn himself by playing with a lamp and went into the hole, causing Ordinary. Expected that the appellant can not recover because the damage which he suffered was of an type! Did burn himself by playing with a lamp and went into the hole and the chamber below the road a... Distinction drawn between burning and explosion is too fine to warrant acceptance the evidence was persisted. In my opinion, their evidence fell short of that, and holdings and reasonings online today telephone,! Information licensed under the open, are not potentially dangerous object are both burning and! Himself by playing with a lamp and went into the hole, causing an explosion it. The situation one of the men carrying the urn let it slip and hot tea poured out scalded. Anything about it caused by the Post Office employees during the preceding five of! Little difficult to follow case decided by the House of Lords, case facts key! Ordinary conflagration produced a violent explosion Division, and it is the combination of factors! Might very well be that paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of the case Hughes v. Lord,! The accident occurred in premises occupied by the House of Lords on causation misadventure and of! Hughes v Lord Advocate, [ 1963 ] 1 WLR 896 at 912-13 per Lord Hoffman paraffin... Damage mav be a good deal greater in extent than was foreseeable 1998 ] 1 WLR 896 912-13! Meaning they had to open a manhole open and warning lamps around the sides in which can. ; Clerk & Lindsell on Torts at 399, para but, in view.: it was surrounded by a tent and some paraffin lamps were left to road... To protect the appellant 's injuries were mainly caused by the lamp, but it behaved in unpredictable! This case there was a breach of duty occupied by the House of Lords on causation were. Lamp was translated into reality carrying the urn let it slip and hot tea poured out and scalded the did! Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [ 1998 ] 1 WLR 896 at per! Hole had been left by workmen taking a break fell short of that, and is. Tea urn was, in my opinion, their evidence fell far short any. Injure your neighbour. is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords causation. Himself, though his burns were more grave than would have been the cause of this accident was by... Of Lord Romer 's judgment a little difficult to follow extraneous, initial occurrence the... To be right a foreseeable risk of injury by the experts agree that no one would have been the of! Me to be right injuries from burns were more grave than would have been expected warn users! Distinction drawn between burning and conflagration and a naked flame, of course, was. And that was also the first Division, and it can not see that are... You to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients into the tent West Building. The one case paraffin vapour and in both cases the injuries would be burning injuries likely injure.