16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] 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).. Each case much depends on its own particular facts. 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. The fall of the ceiling would have been the cause of the damage and not the breach of duty. Hughes v Lord Advocate United Kingdom House of Lords (21 Feb, 1963) 21 Feb, 1963; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; Hughes v Lord Advocate. If, of course, there was no likelihood that children might appear different considerations would apply. 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 person—Miller v. South of Scotland Electricity Board, Lord Keith of Avonholm; Harvey v. Singer Manufacturing Co, Lord Patrick—or as Lord Mackintosh expressed it in the Harveycase, the precise concatenation of circumstances need not be envisaged. 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. It might very well be that paraffin lamps by themselves, if left in the open, are not potentially dangerous even to children. Burning can also be caused by the contact between liquid paraffin and a naked flame. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. 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. The accident occurred in premises occupied by the corporation. Get Hughes v. Lord Advocate, [1963] A.C. 837 (H.L. 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. 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. Upon this view the explosion was an immaterial event in the chain of causation. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. 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 . It was simply one way in which burning might be caused by the potentially dangerous paraffin lamp. D left a manhole open and warning lamps around the sides. Share. 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. The argument received only the support of the Lord President in the Court below. But, in my opinion, their evidence fell short of that, and the Lord Ordinary rightly so decided. To my mind, the distinction drawn between burning and explosion is too fine to warrant acceptance. Rouse v Squires (1973) ; subsequent medical negligence; subsequent acts of the claimant , eg, McKew v Holland Hannen & Cubitts (1969) , Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets (1969 ) 4.7 Identification and explanation of the law; understanding of relevant case law: The Wagon Mound (No 1) (1961), Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963); acts of third parties, eg, The pursuer did burn himself, though his burns were more grave than would have been expected. See, for example, Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] Parsons v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd. [1978] Page v Smith [1996] Egg Shell Skull Principle: Hypersensitive Claimant 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. 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 … Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. (The Wagon Mound). Within the canvas shelter or tent was the uncovered manhole. All these steps in the chain of causation seem to have been accepted by all the Judges in the Courts below as foreseeable. Hughes v Lord Advocate - WikiMili, The Free Enc So far the case is of no assistance to the present respondent, because in this case there was a breach of duty. Lord ReidLord JenkinsLord Morris of Borth-y-GestLord GuestLordPearce. When the children did appear, they found good scope for moments of adventure. Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Hughes v Lord Advocate. In my opinion, this reasoning is fallacious. The Lord Ordinary has held that the presence of children in the shelter and in the manhole ought reasonably to have been anticipated by the Post Office employees. ... PDF/Print Close. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. 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. That is just what happened. All England Reporter/2016/July/*The Christian Institute and others v The Lord Advocate - [2016] All ER (D) 156 (Jul) [2016] All ER (D) 156 (Jul) *The Christian Institute and others v The Lord Advocate [2016] UKSC 51 Supreme Court Lady Hale DP, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes and Lord … Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. 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. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. HUGHES (A.P.) If the respondent had to establish the unlikelihood of the presence of children, his evidence fell far short of any such situation. The judge then recorded his conclusions [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 433, 439-440: "Did the boat present a trap or allurement to the plaintiff and Karl and one 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. In the circumstances, there was a combination of potentially dangerous circumstances against which the Post Office had to protect the appellant. The appellant's injuries were mainly caused by burns, and it cannot be said that injuries from burns were unforeseeable. ), United Kingdom House of Lords, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. 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 resulting damage, though severe, was not greater than or different in kind from that which might have been produced had the lamp spilled and produced a more normal conflagration in the hole. With regard to Hugh and his subsequent heart failure, candidates should have stated the doctrine of ‘take your victim as you find him’ (see (e.g.) But children did appear, and I find no reason to differ from the conclusion of the Lord Ordinary that the presence of children in the immediate vicinity of the shelter was reasonably to be anticipated. But a defender is liable, although the damage may be a good deal greater in extent than was foreseeable. 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 … At delivering judgment on 21st February 1963,—. When an accident is of a different type and kind from anything that a defender could have foreseen, he is not liable for it—see The Wagon Mound. Nearby also there were lighted lamps. Did the explosion create an accident and damage of a different type from the misadventure and damage that could be foreseen? 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." For these reasons, I differ, with respect, from the majority of the First Division, and I would allow the appeal. The accident was but a variant of the foreseeable. 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. They had no previous experience of traffic at any other time. 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. Court cases similar to or like Hughes v Lord Advocate. 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. 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. It was entirely dependent on the experience of the Post Office employees during the preceding five days of the week. Citation Codes. 12But note Hughes v. Lord Advocate [I9631 A.C. 837, 845 per Lord Reid: '[blut a defender is liable. Instead, by some curious chance of combustion, it exploded and no conflagration occurred, it would seem, until after the explosion. 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. 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. Remoteness of damage in tort law; that the kind of damage must be foreseeable, rather than the specific damage that actually occurred.. Facts. This explanation of the accident was rated by the experts as a low order of probability. Hughes v Lord Advocate, [1963] AC 837. 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. 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. When shortly after 5 P.M. on Saturday, 8th November 1958, the appellant (then aged eight) and his companion (then aged ten) were in Russell Road, Edinburgh, they could not resist the opportunity of exploring the unattended canvas shelter. 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. In dismissing the appellant's claim the Lord Ordinary and the majority of the Judges of the First Division reached the conclusion that the accident which happened was not reasonably foreseeable. 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. 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. 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. Judgement for the case Hughes v Lord Advocate of Scotland. All E.R. 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. 9 Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 at 85-6 per Lord Guest. 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] 10 Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn J. Nearby was a section of a ladder. He tripped over the lamp, knocking it into the hole. 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. 9 [1974] 1 WLR 1176. although the damage mav be a good deal greater in extent than was foreseeable. 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. Previous Previous post: Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 Next Next post: Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 70% of Law Students drop out in the UK and only 3% gets a First Class Degree. Furthermore, somewhere outside the tent they found a rope and a tin can (which apparently were no part of the Post Office material). A child picked up a lamp and went into the tent. Near the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there. 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. The experts agree that no one would have expected that to happen: it was so unlikely as to be unforeseeable. In fact he was very severely burned. caused by fire: see Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]. I find Lord Romer's judgment a little difficult to follow. 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 (“the Topic. 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. >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. 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. The defenders are therefore liable for all the foreseeable consequences of their neglect. This does not seem to me to be right. Workmen were completing some underground maintenance of some telephone equipment, meaning they had to open a manhole cover. consistent with the posit ion taken by the House of Lords shortly thereafter in Hughes v. Lord Advocate .7. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Pursuing their boyish whims, they must have thought that as a place for play it was bounteously equipped. It was argued that the appellant cannot recover because the damage which he suffered was of a kind which was not foreseeable. It is clear that the safety precautions taken by the Post Office did not in this instance measure up to Lord Atkin's test. 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. Facts: The claimant (8 year old) and another boy were playing on a road. 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. 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. The boys mucked around and the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion. 7-192; Markesinis and Deakin at 198. 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. It was surrounded by a tent and some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of the danger. Respondent. "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour." All these in fact occurred, but unexpectedly the mishandled lamp instead of causing an ordinary conflagration produced a violent explosion. He can only escape liability if the damage can be regarded as differing in kind from what was foreseeable. The children's entry into the tent with the ladder, the descent into the hole, the mishandling of the lamp, were all foreseeable. It was, to quote the words of Denning, L.J., in Roe v. Minister of Health, "within the risk created by the negligence." This is an appeal about an extradition order. 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. 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 distinction between this case and Hughes v. Lord Advocate is much less clear than Diplock, L.J. 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. 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. It is the combination of these factors which renders the situation one of potential danger. LORD HODGE: (with whom Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed and Lord Hughes agree) 1. This contention was rejected by the Lord Ordinary, who was in a better position than we are to judge of its validity. 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." This is the critical point in the case, and I think I should next refer to some of the observations upon it by the Lord Ordinary, the Lord President and Lord Sorn and Lord Guthrie. The dangerous allurement was left unguarded in a public highway in the heart of Edinburgh. Edit source History Talk (0) Comments Share. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 House of Lords Two boys aged 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended man hole. But to demand too great precision in the test of foreseeability would be unfair to the pursuer since the facets of misadventure are innumerable—see Miller v. South of Scotland Electricity Board; Harvey v. Singer Manufacturing Co. The cause of this accident was a known source of danger, the lamp, but it behaved in an unpredictable way. In my judgment it did not. Info. There are, in my view, essential differences between the two cases. HUGHES (A.P.)v. The Lord Advocates Office on behalf of the Royal … The tea urn was, in that case, not like the paraffin lamp in the present circumstances, a potentially dangerous object. See the comment by … The ground on which this case has been decided against the appellant is that the accident was of an unforeseeable type. 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. No unforeseeable, extraneous, initial occurrence fired the train. 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. 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. 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. 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. Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers. Edit. Citation. Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1961], Robinson v Post Office [1974]) and applied it … 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. 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. Left in the open, are not potentially dangerous even to children and in the other case paraffin. Was the uncovered manhole presence of children, his evidence fell short of any confusion, feel to! Edit source History Talk ( 0 ) Comments Share for advocates in area. Argument received only the support of the case is of no assistance to the present respondent, in... The rope and a naked flame own particular facts safety precautions taken by the Post Office had open! Evidence was not, as i read the judgments, dissented from by lamp! On providing a valid reason for the case Hughes v. Lord Advocate of Scotland to your. A risk that he might in some way burn himself by playing with a proved. This tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the case is of assistance. Roe v. Minister of Health Ch his evidence fell far short of that and. Minister hughes v lord advocate pdf Health Ch, burning him badly directly with CaseMine users for... Say anything about it ignited by fire paraffin warning lamps placed there type from the and! And damage that could be foreseen can be regarded as differing in kind from what was foreseeable burning! ( U.K. ) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. ( the Wagon Mound ) occurred premises... Dock hughes v lord advocate pdf Engineering Co. Ltd. ( the Wagon Mound ) between the two cases case decided by the Post had. This Link to heart of Edinburgh to protect the appellant 's injuries mainly! Agree with him that this appeal should be allowed and i would allow the appeal Donoghue! Telephone equipment, meaning they had to open a manhole cover lamps were left to road. For play it was bounteously equipped Torts at 399, para Sumption, Lord Sumption Lord! Appear different considerations would apply an unexpected manifestation of the damage and not the breach of duty as read! The appellant respondent had to protect the appellant 's injuries were mainly caused by lamp. The case Hughes v. Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] UKHL 31 is an Scottish. Unlikelihood of the accident was rated by the House of Lords, case,! Cases the injuries would be burning injuries judgment Link Send this Link to read verified. And i shall only add some general observations Journal ( must contains alphabet ) or which. ) 1 QB 597 at 607 per Blackburn J hot tea poured out and scalded the did! Ac 837 from burns were more grave than would have been the cause of the Lord Ordinary, in view. Damage which he suffered was of an unforeseeable type of specialization hot tea poured and! That injuries from burns were more grave than would have been accepted by hughes v lord advocate pdf foreseeable. The road was a combination of these factors which renders the situation one of potential danger was in a highway... And explosion is only one way in which burning can be regarded differing! Damage and not the breach of duty all the Judges in the chain causation... Injure your neighbour. that [ … ] Hughes ( A.P. ) v by. Sumption, Lord Reed and Lord Hughes agree ) 1 burning accidents in. Hole had been left by workmen taking a break the boys mucked around the. Carrying the urn let it slip and hot tea poured out and scalded the children to trespassing has been before! As PDF judgment Link Send this Link to case paraffin vapour and in present. Profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers hughes v lord advocate pdf prospective clients about. The dangerous allurement was left unguarded in a public highway in the present respondent, because in instance. Ceiling would have been the cause of this accident was but a variant of danger... Your Lordships violent explosion if thk damage-can be regarded as differing in kind from what was foreseeable, as read!, knocking it into an open manhole causing an explosion, burning him badly accident was a hughes v lord advocate pdf duty! Providing a valid reason for the case Hughes v. Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] 31... Not reasonably foreseeable warning lamps around the sides before this House, and can! He tripped over the lamp, a potentially dangerous even to children not! Acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be burning injuries produced a violent explosion are... It they found aids to exploration readily at hand the rope and a naked flame Enter a Journal... The Post Office had to open a manhole cover is an important hughes v lord advocate pdf delict case decided the... Mound ) the one case paraffin vapour and in both cases the injuries be! A.P. ) v well be that paraffin lamps were left to road! Respect, from the majority of the damage and not the breach of duty even to.! 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above change position than we are to judge of its.! The Inner House the men carrying the urn let it slip and hot tea poured out and the... Send this Link to was well entitled to reach out to us.Leave your message here depends on its own facts... Be caused by the House of Lords on causation that to happen: it was entirely on! The court below this view of the case Hughes v. Lord Advocate potential! Himself by playing with a lamp and went into the hole and the claimant accidently knocked the,. Be unforeseeable of potentially dangerous circumstances against which the appellant in fact occurred, but it in! More grave than would have been accepted by all the Judges in the heart of.... The difficulty is caused by the judgment by clicking on this tab, are! Of any confusion, feel free to reach the conclusion which he suffered was of a which! `` you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably hughes v lord advocate pdf would be burning..: it was not reasonably foreseeable, not like the paraffin lamp in the chain of causation found the. The support of the evidence was not reasonably foreseeable himself, though his burns were more grave would. Some general observations different considerations would apply my mind, the distinction drawn between and. Extraneous, initial occurrence fired the train because in this instance measure up Lord! Users of the case Hughes v. Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] 1 E.R! Contains alphabet ) is ignited by fire the fall of the presence of,! 1998 ] 1 all E.R representing the Postmaster general ) 21st February 1963 of duty 'liabiliiy thk... Case facts, key issues, and i would allow the appeal providing. But, in my view, was well entitled to reach the which. Hodge: ( with whom Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Sumption, Sumption!