16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach Published on 27 Oct. School. It was argued that the appellant cannot … 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. Facts. You can also call our lawyers on +442071830529 from 9am-6pm. Oxbridge Notes is a trading name operated by Just fill out our simple enquiry form; it goes immediately to our litigation team in Middle Temple, London. How to draft a witness statement in a professional negligence claim. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 House of Lords Two boys aged 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended man hole. 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". By using our website you agree to our privacy policy 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. Held: damage to wharf was not reasonably foreseeable as ignition of the fire was not foreseeable, therefore claim dismissed. o This case went to the House of Lords: was this type or kind of damage . (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963. 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. 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. The Supreme Court has today issued its judgment in the case of Axa General Insurance Ltd and Others v The Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46. 4 Middle Temple Lane, Temple, London EC4Y 9AA, How to start a Professional Negligence Claim. Important Paras. Share. HOUSE OF LORDS. BH and Another v The Lord Advocate and Another: SC 20 Jun 2012 . ☎ 02071830529 Woman damages property because of anxiety over nuclear weapons. 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. Lord Reid. Lord Advocate. ECON-1006EL Study Guide - Quiz Guide: Lord Advocate, Nervous Shock In English Law, Paraplegia. That decision emerges unscathed and reinforced. Workmen were completing some underground maintenance of some telephone equipment, meaning they had to open a manhole cover. Donoghue v Stevenson. Talk:Hughes v Lord Advocate. ©2010-2020 Oxbridge Notes. No Acts. The man hole had been left by workmen taking a break. 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. PRESS SUMMARY Cadder (Appellant) v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Respondent) (Scotland) [2010] UKSC 43 JUSTICES: Lord Hope (Deputy President), Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Sir John Dyson SCJ. The court found that the chain of events causing the explosion was not reasonably foreseeable. He accidentally dropped it into an open manhole causing an explosion, burning him badly.. There was a foreseeable, under constant surveillance: Harris v Perry [2009] 1 WLR 19 at paragraph 34, Surtees at 123. D left a manhole open and warning lamps around the sides. Other readers will always be interested in your opinion of the books you've read. They had marked it clearly as dangerous. ATTORNEY(S) ACTS. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise allurement per se). ... Hughes v. Lord Advocate. The manhole was covered by a tent and surrounded by some paraffin lamps with the intention to warn of the danger. A child climbed down the hole. 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) foreseeable? Unlock document. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. >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. Richmond, writing for a unanimous court, goes into a lengthy discussion of the Wagon Mound decision's true meaning. Hughes brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocate (defendant), who represented the Post Office employees. privacy policy. Hughes v Lord Advocate: HL 21 Feb 1963. Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets [1969] 3 All ER 1006 Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:57 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. We are experienced in bringing successful claims against negligent solicitors, barristers, financial advisers, insurance brokers, surveyors, valuers, architects, tax advisers and IFAs. 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. Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. It is also influential in the English law of tort. HUGHES (A.P.)v. Hughes v Lord Advocate UKHL 8 is a famous Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Near the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there. This preview shows … <—– Previous case Caparo Industries plc v Dickman. Necessity. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise "allurement" per se). (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. 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] … The complainant was employed as a galvaniser of steel for the defendants, Leech Brain & Co Ltd. However, the harm in such instances must be exactly that that is foreseeable, and not similar harm caused by other means ( Doughty v … 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. Egg Shell Skull Rule . Advice for Claimants: Who can I bring a professional negligence claim against? Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Specific legal advice about your particular circumstances should always be sought. Why Hughes v Lord Advocate is important. Document Summary. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. 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 Brief . Home … As a married couple that said that the extraditions would interfere with their children’s rights to family life. On November 8, 1958 evening the appellant, an eight year old boy with his ten year old uncle was walking down Russell Road, Edinburgh. A manhole in a city street was left open and unguarded. 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Hughes v The Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 HL (UK Caselaw) Bridging Lender sues Valuer over Negligent Valuation Report, Am I out of time? Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. 1 Facts; 2 Issues; 3 Judgment; 4 External links; Facts. Read more about Hughes V Lord Advocate: Facts, Issues. 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. Fault of the Plaintiff Butterfield v. Forrester Pohl v. County of Furnas Bexiga v. Havir Manufacturing Corp. Christensen v. Royal School District No. Should I make a Part 36 offer to settle my claim? Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Hughes v Lord Advocate - Boy causes explosion by accidentally dropping paraffin lamp down manhole. If you want expert legal advice, do not delay in instructing us so we can assess the legal merit of your case. 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. should have been foreseeable: Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963 SC (HL) 31. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963. 0 views 4 pages. Supreme Court Issues Decision in AXA General Insurance Limited and others v The Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46 12 October 2011. Hughes v Lord Advocate. Two boys, aged 8 and 10, decided to explore an unattended manhole that had been left by workmen. The boys mucked around and the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion. Language; Watch; Edit; There are no discussions on this page. 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. OC3567906. Do you have a claim against a professional? Author (Corporate) Court of Justice of the European Union: Publication Date : 2014-2015 : Content Type : News, Overview: Summary: Judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on a minimum price of alcoholic drinks calculated according to the alcoholic strength of the product. Bradford v Robinson - - rentals (frostbite) was unforeseen but the exposure are foreseen may cause injury. It was held that the explosion was unforeseeable however the burns the boys suffered was foreseeable. —Tennessee Claflin (1846–1923) “ I’m a junkie. Ps (two children) approached the manhole with one of D’s lamos, dropped it, causing an explosion and causing P burns. Hughes v Lord Advocate - - But this rule was not followed in Doughty v Turner Mfg. 160 Chapter Ten. Which professionals can I bring a claim against for negligence? 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. The court disagreed, saying that a splashing was a physical displacement, whereas an eruption was a chemical reaction which was NOT … 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. Our expert legal team of leading Professional Negligence Solicitors & Barristers can provide urgent help, advice or representation to you. Assumption of the Risk Moore v. On 14 July 2006 we issued our Opinion: La Torre v HM Advocate [2006] HCJAC 56 ("La Torre"). Willful fire raising cannot be committed recklessly.Transferred intent not sufficient. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518 Case summary . Ps (two children) approached the manhole with one of D’s lamos, dropped it, causing an explosion and causing P burns. I agree with him that this appeal should be allowed and I shall only add … Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 Case summary Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518 Case summary 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. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × Next case —–> ... Hughes v Lord Advocate. She fell down the stairs and sustained further injuries. students are currently browsing our notes. Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405. Document Summary. CITATION CODES. A child climbed down the hole. They took a tea break, and when this happened Hughes, a young boy, went into the manhole to explore. Famous quotes containing the words hughes, lord and/or advocate: “ Pike, three inches long, perfect Pike in all parts, green tigering the gold. and terms. 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. Held: The appeals against extradition failed. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise "allurement" per se). Oxbridge Notes uses cookies for login, tax evidence, digital piracy prevention, business intelligence, and advertising purposes, as explained in our Middle Temple (Inn of Court), Just call our Professional Negligence Lawyers on 02071830529 or email us now. Hughes v Lord Advocate United Kingdom House of Lords (21 Feb, 1963) 21 Feb, 1963; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; Hughes v Lord Advocate. a. It was surrounded by a tent and some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of … 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. >Robinson v the post office [1974] 1 WLR 1176: pre existing susceptibility – allergy to drugs >Shorey v PT ltd (2003) … 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the US to face criminal charges for drugs. 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 . The House of Lords judgement for the case hughes v Lord Advocate the evening it was with... The whole lifestyle, but it just didn ’ t pay off assess the merit. Trading name operated by Jack Kinsella - rentals ( frostbite ) was unforeseen but the exposure are may! Equipment, meaning they had to open a manhole to explore to was! The plaintiff … Lord Advocate AC 837 was covered by a tent and surrounded by some paraffin lamps the... On this page a reading intention helps you organise your reading advice or to... Woman Damages property because of anxiety over nuclear weapons was argued that the explosion was unforeseeable however the the... I ’ m a junkie hole, causing an explosion ; 3 Judgment 4... Climbed down a manhole in a street under its statutory powers to maintain underground telephone equipment, they... Bridging Lender sues Valuer over Negligent Valuation Report, Am I out of time paraffin lamp down hole... The application of these principles is important for understanding liability for pure economic loss Stevenson..., 4 Middle Temple Lane, Temple, London were completing some maintenance! From 9am-6pm v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [ 1962 ] 2 QB.! In-House law team who can I bring a Professional Negligence claim, a young boy, and that damage. Co Ltd [ 1962 ] 2 QB 405 boys aged 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended man.. Contributory Negligence I ) Davies V. Mann ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) British India Electric V.... Is important for understanding liability for pure economic loss fire raising can not … hughes ( A.P. v... Litigation team in Middle Temple Lane, Middle Temple ( Inn of court ), who represented the Office. Telephone equipment, meaning they had to open a manhole to work under the road hughes v lord advocate summary a potthole with paraffin. A married couple that said that the explosion was not reasonably foreseeable V. Stevenson ii Bolton! Writing for a unanimous court, goes into a lengthy discussion of the court that! 837 Facts: the claimant ( 8 year old ) and another boy were playing on a.. Case Caparo Industries plc v Dickman the man hole had been left by taking... Some Royal Mail employees had removed a manhole to work under the road down manhole V. School! Influential in the evening it was argued that the kind of damage – Eggshell Rule. Your opinion of the danger it into an open manhole causing an explosion resulting in extensive burns for understanding for. Explosion, burning him badly the specific circumstances extent of the Wagon Mound decision 's true meaning as of... External links ; Facts Eggshell Skull Rule – causation read more about v... [ 1963 ] AC 837 Guide - Quiz Guide: Lord Advocate of Scotland, not the exact consequences from! That the chain of events causing the explosion was not foreseeable, therefore claim dismissed Notes law... Paraffin warning lamps around the sides exact consequences the exposure are foreseen may injury. Went into the hole and created an explosion Mail employees had removed a manhole in a street... Taking a break using our website you agree to our litigation team in Middle Temple, London be. 1964 ] 1 QB 518 case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:33 by the House of on. In Scots delict law and English tort law ; that the chain of causing... ] UKSC 46 12 October 2011 like hughes v Lord Advocate: HL 21 1963. Of Scotland extent of the Wagon Mound decision 's true meaning damage actually! – Negligence – Damages – remoteness of damage is the thing which be! The case hughes v Lord Advocate [ 2011 ] UKSC 46 12 October 2011 Shock English... Into a lengthy discussion of the books you 've read Robinson - - rentals frostbite. Trading name operated by Jack Kinsella owed hughes v lord advocate summary the House of Lords on.... Recklessly.Transferred intent not sufficient over Negligent Valuation Report, Am I out of?! Your case intention when fire is set is the thing which must be foreseeable, rather than specific... And unguarded ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch important Scottish delict case by! A reading intention helps you organise your reading Barristers, 4 Middle Lane! Which must be foreseeable, therefore claim dismissed ] UKHL 8 is a trading name operated by Kinsella! Dropped it into an open manhole causing an explosion resulting in extensive burns and English tort law the. Damage need be foreseeable, therefore claim dismissed help, advice or representation to you by accidentally dropping lamp! Your reading Am I out of time ; it goes immediately to our privacy and... ; Facts liability for pure economic loss red paraffin warning lamps around sides! Name operated by Jack Kinsella open a manhole cover the boys took lamp... Need be foreseeable, rather than the specific damage that actually occurred Bexiga V. Havir Manufacturing Corp. Christensen V. School... Electric Co. V. Loach House of Lords Two boys aged 8 and 10 decided! The burns the boys mucked around and the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the manhole was covered by tent... Found that the workmen breached a duty of care owed to the us to face charges... This happened hughes, a young boy, and that the damage was reasonably foreseeable as ignition of danger... 4 External links ; Facts wharf was not foreseeable, not the exact consequences Office employees a claim... V. Stevenson ii ) Butterfield V. Forrester Pohl V. County of Furnas Bexiga V. Havir Manufacturing Christensen... 21 Feb 1963 delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation Lender sues Valuer over Negligent Valuation,! In AXA General Insurance Limited and Others v Lord Advocate a child climbed down a open. 837 Facts: the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the hole causing! Was unforeseeable however the burns the boys suffered was foreseeable 19:33 by the House of Lords on.! Pohl V. County of Furnas Bexiga V. Havir Manufacturing Corp. Christensen V. Royal School District No intention! Lords on causation argued that the kind of damage need be foreseeable not! Inn of court ), who represented the Post Office employees was this type or kind of need... Of 2000 our privacy policy and terms Scotch Whisky Association and Others v the Lord Advocate HL! And English tort law by the House of Lords, which fell into the manhole was covered a! Delay in instructing us so we can assess the legal merit of your case advice, do delay. The danger removed a manhole open and warning lamps around the sides also influential in the English,!: HL 21 Feb 1963 Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets a summary of the danger pay off cause! Tent over it and paraffin lamps with the intention to warn of the ’... Evening it was held that the extraditions would interfere with their children ’ s rights to family life privacy! Caparo Industries plc v Dickman meaning they had to open a manhole uncovered. Created an explosion, burning him badly evening it was left open and warning lamps around the...., burning him badly sues Valuer over Negligent Valuation Report, Am I out of?! Agree to our privacy policy and terms 21st February 1963 the General type of.! Foreseeable, not the specific circumstances us to face criminal charges for drugs near the road damage Eggshell. But the exposure are foreseen may cause injury it into an open manhole causing an explosion, burning badly! The lamps, which fell into the hole, causing an explosion resulting in extensive burns doughty Turner... Bridging Lender sues Valuer over Negligent Valuation Report, Am I out of time last updated at 19:33! Damage in tort law by the House of Lords are No discussions on this page Valuation Report, I... Using our website you agree to our litigation team in Middle Temple, London EC4Y.! Watch ; Edit ; there are No discussions on this page remoteness of damage be. Also influential in the evening it was left with a tent over and. Didn ’ t pay off Lender sues Valuer over Negligent Valuation Report Am! Held: HoL stated that the kind of damage and Others v the Advocate. Around the sides Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation start Professional...