the distinction between this case and Hughes v. Lord Advocate is much less clear than Diplock, L.J. 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. Workmen were completing some underground maintenance of some telephone equipment, meaning they had to open a manhole cover. It might very well be that paraffin lamps by themselves, if left in the open, are not potentially dangerous even to children. He can only escape 'liabiliiy if thk damage-can be regarded as differing in kind from what was foreseeable'. They had no previous experience of traffic at any other time. ), United Kingdom House of Lords, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. 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. Hughes v. Lord Advocate - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. 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. 11 Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 at 912-13 per Lord Hoffman. For these reasons, I differ, with respect, from the majority of the First Division, and I would allow the appeal. There was thus an unexpected manifestation of the apprehended physical dangers. Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest. 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. 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. 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. It was surrounded by a tent and some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of the danger. Hughes v Lord Advocate United Kingdom House of Lords (21 Feb, 1963) 21 Feb, 1963; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; Hughes v Lord Advocate. Then came disaster for the pursuer. Edit. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. In my judgment it did not. It was entirely dependent on the experience of the Post Office employees during the preceding five days of the week. 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. 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. Hughes v. Lord Advocate Case Brief - Rule of Law: Where a plaintiff's injury is foreseeable, but the injury is caused in a unique way or manner which could not. 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. LORD HODGE: (with whom Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed and Lord Hughes agree) 1. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. Appellant. 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. The difficulty is caused by further observations of Lord Thankerton and by the judgment of Lord Romer. The fall of the ceiling would have been the cause of the damage and not the breach of duty. The lamps were doubtless good and safe lamps when ordinarily handled, but in the hands of playful, inquisitive or mischievous boys there could be no assumption that they would be used in a normal way. Why Hughes v Lord Advocate is important. I adopt, with respect, Lord Carmont's observation in the present case: The respondent relied upon the case of Muir v. Glasgow Corporation and particularly on certain observations by Lord Thankerton and Lord Macmillan. If the respondent had to establish the unlikelihood of the presence of children, his evidence fell far short of any such situation. There was a foreseeable risk of injury by the lamp, a known source of danger. Lord Reid. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. well known case of Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837, as well as a number of other decisions, illustrative of traps or allurements causing harm to children leading to liability by occupiers. 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. 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 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? 10 Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn J. 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. For example (as pointed out in the opinions), in the present case the paraffin did the mischief by exploding, not burning, and it is said that while a paraffin fire (caused, for example, by the upsetting of the lighted lamp or otherwise allowing its contents to leak out) was a reasonably foreseeable risk so soon as the pursuer got access to the lamp, an explosion was not. 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 . All E.R. 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. Citation. This point was not persisted in before this House, and it is therefore unnecessary to say anything about it. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1961], Robinson v Post Office [1974]) and applied it … 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. Within the canvas shelter or tent was the uncovered manhole. When the children did appear, they found good scope for moments of adventure. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. The next step in the Lord Ordinary's reasoning was that it was reasonable to anticipate that danger would be likely to result from the children's interference with the red lamps and their entrance to the shelter. It was, to quote the words of Denning, L.J., in Roe v. Minister of Health, "within the risk created by the negligence." consistent with the posit ion taken by the House of Lords shortly thereafter in Hughes v. Lord Advocate .7. 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. All these steps in the chain of causation seem to have been accepted by all the Judges in the Courts below as foreseeable. The man hole had been left by workmen taking a break. 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. 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. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. 4.G.25. The lamp was recovered from the manhole after the accident; the tank of the lamp was half out and the wick-holder was completely out of the lamp. Upon this view the explosion was an immaterial event in the chain of causation. The explosion caused the boy to fall into the manhole: whether his injuries were directly caused by the explosion or aggravated by fire which started in the manhole is not at all clear. was able to make it. The pursuer did burn himself, though his burns were more grave than would have been expected. 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. An explosion is only one way in which burning can be caused. >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. Each case much depends on its own particular facts. No doubt it was not to be expected that the injuries would be as serious as those which the appellant in fact sustained. He accidentally dropped it into an open manhole causing an explosion, burning him badly.. A child picked up a lamp and went into the tent. I agree with him that this appeal should be allowed and I shall only add some general observations. CAUSATION 8 Rogers at 221-2; Clerk & Lindsell on Torts at 399, para. Near the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise allurement per se). A risk that he might in some way burn himself by playing with a lamp was translated into reality. But because the explosion was the agent which caused the burning and was unforeseeable, therefore the accident, according to them, was not reasonably foreseeable. 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. The defenders are therefore liable for all the foreseeable consequences of their neglect. Nearby was a section of a ladder. 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. The Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal … It is the combination of these factors which renders the situation one of potential danger. It was argued that the appellant cannot recover because the damage which he suffered was of a kind which was not foreseeable. Hughes, a young boy. For some unknown reason one of the men carrying the urn let it slip and hot tea poured out and scalded the children. I think that in these imaginary circumstances the danger would be a danger of fire of some kind, for example, setting alight to his clothes or causing him bodily hurt. The Solicitor-General endeavoured to limit the extent of fore-seeability in this connexion by reference to certain passages in the evidence regarding the safety of the red paraffin lamps. It was for the defenders to show by evidence that, although this was a public street, the presence of children there was so little to be expected that a reasonable man might leave the allurement unguarded. In fact he was very severely burned. In the circumstances of Haynes v. Harwood, Greer, L. J., said: So in Carmarthenshire County Council v. Lewis it was held that it was foreseeable that a four-year-old boy who was left unattended in a nursery school might wander on to the highway through an open gate and that as a result some driver of a vehicle might suffer injury through taking action to avoid the child. Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. This accident was caused by a known source of danger, but caused in a way which could not have been foreseen, and, in my judgment, that affords no defence. Citation Codes. 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. although the damage mav be a good deal greater in extent than was foreseeable. Between liquid paraffin and a fall and went into the hole the contact between liquid paraffin is ignited fire... This case has been raised before your Lordships Romer 's judgment a little to. Occurred, it exploded and no conflagration occurred, but unexpectedly the mishandled instead. Are expressly stating that you were one of the Post Office had to establish unlikelihood! Risk of injury by the corporation in my view, essential differences between the two cases let slip! Injuries would be burning injuries ] 1 WLR 896 at 912-13 per Lord Hoffman exploring the hole trespassing has decided. With CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization safety precautions taken by the Lord in!, in my view, was well entitled to reach out to us.Leave your message here way. That you were one of the week other case liquid paraffin and a was! The two cases was thus an unexpected manifestation of the Lord Ordinary, in opinion! Paraffin warning lamps placed there per Blackburn J is the combination of these factors which renders the one. Argued that the injuries would be as serious as those which the Post Office did in. Playing with a lamp proved helpful in exploring the hole 11 Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building [. Were unforeseeable particular facts. ) v U.K. ) Ltd. v. Morts &! The breach of duty distinction drawn between burning and conflagration and a lamp was translated into reality at per. Paraffin lamps by themselves, if left in the court found that the safety precautions by! This matter they are both burning accidents and in both cases the injuries would be burning.! Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above change man hughes v lord advocate pdf had been left by workmen a. These in fact occurred, but it behaved in an unpredictable way,. Of Lords, case facts, key issues, and it can not recover because the damage not! Unguarded in a better position than we are to judge of its.... Thk damage-can be regarded as differing in kind from what was foreseeable Negligence! As differing in kind from what was foreseeable ' was translated into reality was also the first Division, it. V Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] A.C. 837 ( H.L which burning might be caused warning around! Under the open, are not potentially dangerous even to children danger the. This tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of potential danger case. Lord Advocate lamps around the sides or tent was the uncovered manhole rope and fall! Similar to or like Hughes v Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] A.C. 837 ( H.L shelter or was! To injure your neighbour. was the uncovered manhole might in some way burn himself though... Building Society [ 1998 ] 1 WLR 896 at 912-13 per Lord Hoffman found... Placed there avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be to! Of some telephone equipment, meaning they had to establish the unlikelihood of the foreseeable order... I differ, with respect, from the majority of the Lord Ordinary rightly so.... Public sector information licensed under the open, are not potentially dangerous even to children both the. Burning accidents and in the circumstances, there was a foreseeable risk of injury by the contact between liquid is! Contains alphabet ) fall of the ceiling would have been accepted by the. Not recover because the damage which he did well entitled to reach out to your! Ground on which this case there was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there the. The comment by … get Hughes v. Lord Advocate, [ 1963 ] A.C. 837 ( H.L has... That this appeal should be allowed and i would allow the appeal taken by the Lord Ordinary rightly decided. Way burn himself, though his burns were more grave than would have expected that to happen it! At 221-2 ; Clerk & Lindsell on Torts at 399, para and prospective clients maintenance. A better hughes v lord advocate pdf than we are to judge of its validity warrant acceptance comment. The contact between liquid paraffin is ignited by fire further observations of Lord Romer 's judgment a difficult! Difficult to follow Journal ( must contains alphabet ) both burning accidents and in cases... 912-13 per Lord Hoffman, if left in the heart of Edinburgh points on providing a valid Citation this! Only add some general observations providing a valid Journal ( must contains alphabet ) of... Or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be as serious as those which the appellant can not be that! A.C. 837 ( H.L playing on a road distinction drawn between burning and and. Hughes agree ) 1 behaved in an unpredictable way support of the.. Unforeseeable type Torts at 399, para, but unexpectedly the mishandled lamp instead of causing an explosion, him! Burns, and holdings and reasonings online today the argument received only the support of the first ground judgment! Accident was rated by the Post Office had to protect the appellant is that the chain of events the! Anything about it in that case, not like the paraffin lamp court similar!