Doughty v Turner [1964] 1 QB 518
Judgement for the case Doughty v Turner
Table Of Contents
Defendant was employed by Plaintiff to look after two cauldrons of boiling hot metal that had asbestos covers.
Defendant accidentally let the cover slide into the cauldron. Since the cover was bought off a reputable manufacturer, nobody thought it was dangerous that the cover was in the cauldron and they stayed in the room. The metal exploded injuring Defendant.
CA dismissed Defendant’s claim since the only reasonably foreseeable damage was that there might be a “splash”, while an explosion was completely unforeseeable. Therefore, because the actual danger was of a fundamentally different type to the reasonably foreseeable danger, Plaintiff was not liable.
Harman LJ
Says that unlike in Hughes where the explosion was merely on a larger than expected scale of the same type of damage, the difference between “splash” and explosion here is fundamental.
RELATED CASES
For Further Study on Doughty v Turner
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Tort Law | Negligence Law Notes (20 pages) |
| Tort Law | Nuisance Notes (70 pages) |
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.