Hughes v Lord Advocate of Scotland [1963] AC 837
Judgement for the case Hughes v Lord Advocate of Scotland
Table Of Contents
Defendant left a manhole open and warning lamps around the sides. Plaintiffs (two children) approached the manhole with one of Defendant’s lamps, dropped it, causing an explosion and causing Plaintiff burns.
HL said Defendant was liable because it was reasonably foreseeable that children would approach the unguarded, open manhole and suffer injury as a result.
Lord Pearce
NB Defendants would not have been liable if the accident had been of a different type from one that they could reasonably have foreseen.
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.
RELATED CASES
For Further Study on Hughes v Lord Advocate of Scotland
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 StartedRelated Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Tort Law | Negligence Law Notes (20 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.