D left a manhole open and warning lamps around the sides. Ps (two children) approached the manhole with one of D’s lamos, dropped it, causing an explosion and causing P burns. HL said D was liable because it was reasonably foreseeable that children would approach the unguarded, open manhole and suffer injury as a result.
Lord Pearce: NB Ds 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.”