HUGHES (A.P.)v. Lord ReidLord JenkinsLord Morris of Borth-y-GestLord GuestLordPearce. 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. A manhole in a city street was left open and unguarded. Hughes v Lord Advocate is similar to these court cases: Donoghue v Stevenson, Titchener v British Rlys Board, Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd and more. Judgement for the case Hughes v Lord Advocate of Scotland. HUGHES (A.P.) 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. Hughes v. Lord Advocate A.C. 837 (H.L.) The boys took a lamp down the hole and created an explosion resulting in extensive burns. 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 - … One boy fell in and the lamp exploded causing burns. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. 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. MY LORDS, I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble andlearned friend, Lord Guest, is … I am satisfied that […] Why Hughes v Lord Advocate is important. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Topic. The manhole was covered by a tent and surrounded by some paraffin lamps with the intention to warn of the danger. Court cases similar to or like Hughes v Lord Advocate. 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. Two boys, aged 8 and 10, decided to explore an unattended manhole that had been left by workmen. Hughes v Lord Advocate: Case Summary . 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. >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. The court found that the chain of events causing the explosion was not reasonably foreseeable. Facts. It was covered with a tent and surrounded by warning paraffin lamps. I agree with him that this appeal […] Held: HoL stated that the workmen breached a duty of care owed to the boy, and that the damage was reasonably foreseeable. 8-year-old boy entered and got severely burned. Hughes v Lord Advocate. 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 about to deliver. Lord Reid. Workmen were completing some underground maintenance of some telephone equipment, meaning they had to open a manhole cover. Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach He accidentally dropped it into an open manhole causing an explosion, burning him badly.. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963. D left a manhole open and warning lamps around the sides. I agree with him that this appeal should be allowed and I shall only add some general observations. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. Share. They roped the area off and put up warning signs, but left the manhole open and left lit lanterns nearby. (1963) Postal employees (who worked for the Lord Advocate) were working on an underground cable in Scotland when they decided to take a break. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] A.C. 837 Two young boys were playing near an unattended manhole surrounded by paraffin lamps.