This case dealt with whether the post office employees could be held liable for injuries sustained by a child who fell into an unsecured manhole on a quiet street. The court found that while the specific injury was not foreseeable, the employees failed in their duty of care by not closing or guarding the manhole during their absence. The court advocated a "middle way" approach where liability can arise if the actual loss falls within a foreseeable class of harm, even if the precise injury is not foreseeable. The employees were found negligent and the child's claim succeeded. This established the principle of "occupier's liability" for defective or dangerous conditions on land.
This case dealt with whether the post office employees could be held liable for injuries sustained by a child who fell into an unsecured manhole on a quiet street. The court found that while the specific injury was not foreseeable, the employees failed in their duty of care by not closing or guarding the manhole during their absence. The court advocated a "middle way" approach where liability can arise if the actual loss falls within a foreseeable class of harm, even if the precise injury is not foreseeable. The employees were found negligent and the child's claim succeeded. This established the principle of "occupier's liability" for defective or dangerous conditions on land.
This case dealt with whether the post office employees could be held liable for injuries sustained by a child who fell into an unsecured manhole on a quiet street. The court found that while the specific injury was not foreseeable, the employees failed in their duty of care by not closing or guarding the manhole during their absence. The court advocated a "middle way" approach where liability can arise if the actual loss falls within a foreseeable class of harm, even if the precise injury is not foreseeable. The employees were found negligent and the child's claim succeeded. This established the principle of "occupier's liability" for defective or dangerous conditions on land.
This case dealt with whether the post office employees could be held liable for injuries sustained by a child who fell into an unsecured manhole on a quiet street. The court found that while the specific injury was not foreseeable, the employees failed in their duty of care by not closing or guarding the manhole during their absence. The court advocated a "middle way" approach where liability can arise if the actual loss falls within a foreseeable class of harm, even if the precise injury is not foreseeable. The employees were found negligent and the child's claim succeeded. This established the principle of "occupier's liability" for defective or dangerous conditions on land.
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 5
HUGHES V.
LORD ADVOCTE Appellant: Hughes
Versus Respondent: The Lord Advocate
INTRODUCTION: Hughes v. Lord [1963] UKHL 31 Advocate is a significant Scottish delicit case decided by the House of Lords on causation. The case is influential in negligence in the English law of tort. This case’s main thing is that, after the shift within the common law of negligence from strict liability to a reasonable standard of care, this case advocated a middle way. This case advocates that the remoteness of damage in tort law, that the kind of damage must be foreseeable, rather than the specific damage that occurred. This case deals prominently with the middle way and how the judgement of the lower court was reversed by court of appeal by giving various counters for the points under which the lower court dismissed the case, this case deals with contributory negligence, trespass, negligence, causation, foreseeability. Previously the cases which are similar to these cases were not dealt with the middle way, In Glasgow corporation v. Muir [1943], here the problem was whether the act is foreseeable or not was a problem and here the middle way was not advocated which led to the reversal of the judgment to avoid these confusions a new liability was brought in that is occupier’s liability.
CASE BACKGROUND:
PARTIES: Appellant: Hughes Respondent: The Lord Advocate
MAJORITY JUDGES: Lord Reid Lord Guest Lord Jenkins Lord Pearce Lord Morris of Borth -y-gest SUMMARY OF FACTS: On November 8, 1958 during an afternoon few post office employees were working on telephone cables under Russel Road, Edinburgh. It was a very quiet road which had no houses within 400 yards vicinity. They were permitted to remove the cover of a man hole which is 9 feet deep and used a ladder for their work purpose. They have erected a canvas shelter tent and fixed four red warning lamps made out of paraffin wax. Around 5 pm they went for a tea break, while going they removed the ladder and left it outside the hole and during their absence the plaintiff who was of 8 years old arrived with his uncle who was of 10 years old. They took the ladder, a paraffin lamp, a rope and a tin and went into the man hole and while returning out of it the plaintiff tripped over the paraffin lamp which in turn fell down and some paraffin escaped and it created an explosive mixture and it was detonated to the naked light of the lamp. The explosion affected the plaintiff who fell in to the man hole and sustained severe burns and injuries especially in his fingers. The plaintiff was represented by his guardian Hughes and the verdict was not in their favor in the First Division of the Court of Session, 1961. Then they went for appeal.
LEGAL PROVISIONS: 1. Negligence in English law of tort ISSUES RAISED: 1. Whether the act of the respondent is subjected to negligence? 2. Can the respondent can be held liable for violation of Right to Personal injury? 3. Does the foreseeability of the actual event that caused the injury matters or just the foreseeability of the injury? 4. Can the appellant can be held liable for trespass? 5. Whether the act committed by the appellant amount to contributory negligence?
CRUX OF THE JUDGEMENT:
The case advocated a middle way that is even if the loss or harm is not itself foreseeable, liability may arise provided the actual loss falls with a foreseeable class of harm. The respondents were held liable in terms of negligence and breach of duty to take proper care and through that middle way above mentioned. The respondents claim of contributory negligence and trespass was countered and their plea was dismissed. Duty: It was the duty of the employees of the post office to close the manhole or leave a watchman during their time of absence. Breach: The right against bodily injury and right to life has been breached and they have also breached the duty to take proper care, which had led to this incident. Cause: The injury here was due to the negligence of the respondent and the failure of respondent’s duty to take proper care. Harm: The appellant here has sustained severe burns and injuries in his body especially in fingers which in turn affected the physical health of the appellant and led him to a state of physical agony.
DETAILED COMMENTARY ON ISSUES:
The act of the respondent was subjected to negligence because they did not close the manhole or leave any watchman during their absence by this their act amounted to negligence and they have breached the duty to take proper care. This act of the respondent has violated the Right to Personal injuries of the appellant. As the omission of act of the employees to take proper care, which has led to the violation of Right to Personal injuries. This case was advocated in middle way that is even if the loss or harm is not foreseeable, liability may arise provided the actual loss falls with a foreseeable class of harm and this accident was caused by a known source of danger so this act was foreseeable. It is foreseeable that if the appellant enters the manhole, it was likely that they will carry a lamp along with them and it is obvious that if the lamp falls then it will explode, so the act falls under the category of foreseeability. The dangerous material which caused the damage was foreseeable, it is not necessary that the precise result must be foreseen, it is immaterial how the injury happened. As long as you can foresee in a general way the type of injury that occurs then you have proximate cause. The appellant can’t be held liable for trespass because it did not include a sufficient exclusive interest in any part of the roadway to support a claim in trespass. The burden of proof is laid on the respondent to prove that the appellant has caused trespass, which the respondent failed to prove. The act of the appellant can’t be held for contributory negligence by considering the tender age of the appellant and it is nature of the children to fiddle, explore and play with things, so it is the respondent’s duty to take guard of the pursuer.
SUBSEQUENT DEVEOPMENTS: The case main significance is that, after the shift within the common law of negligence from strict liability to a reasonable standard of care. This case advocated a middle way namely: even if the loss or harm is not itself foreseeable the liability may arise provided the actual loss falls with the foreseeable class of harm. This idea was neither developed nor expanded upon and only one year later the claimant in Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing, obtained no remedy via this middle way. To place these kinds of cases a new liability called Occupier’s liability was formed. Occupier’s liability is also known as Premises liability, under this the landowner or occupier is held liable for certain torts occur on their land. The liability ranges from open excavations as mentioned in Hughes v. Lord advocate, uneven pavement, standing water, wet floors, falling objects, inadequate security as mentioned in our case, improper secured mts, concealed holes and it also includes defects in chairs and benches. The introduction of the liability has reduced the confusion of these kind of similar cases.
CONCLUSION: The court of appeal has reversed the verdict of the First Division of the court of session,1961. In the first division of court of session the verdict was in the favor of respondent under the reason that the act which caused the injury was not foreseeable. This was reversed in the court of appeal which was led by a five-member bench.Here all the five judges allowed the appeal which led to the reversal of the verdict of the First Division of the Court of session under the following that the respondents were filed under negligence, breaching the duty of taking proper care and the case was given verdict under a middle way that is even if the loss or harm is not foreseeable but the liability will arise if the loss falls with a foreseeable class of harm. After this case all similar cases are dealt under a liability called Occupier’s liability.
SIMILAR JUDGEMENTS: March v. Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd (24.04.1991 – AUSH): It is a case decided on Australian tort law. Here the defendant was held liable for negligence and the act caused the injury falls under the category of foreseeability. The fact here was the defendant parked his truck in center line of the road and the plaintiff dashed the truck as he was intoxicated and here the damages was awarded to the plaintiff as his act contributed to negligence and the injury was foreseeable. Chapman v. Hearse [08.08.1961] HCA 46: It is a case decided in Australian tort law. Here the respondent was under the influence of alcohol and he was rashly driving a car ,which led to an accident in which he was thrown out of the car, seeing this Cherry went to attend the respondent during this time Hearse dashed Cherry by his car ,which led to Cherry’s death and the court held Hearse for his act but Hearse filed a case against Chapman for his act which contributed to this act and Chapman was held liable under foreseeable of the act which caused this injury. Wagner v. International Railway and Co. [ 1921], 133 NE 437: It is case which falls under tort law. Here the plaintiff was injured when he was guided by the conductor of the train to attend his cousin who was thrown out through the open door of the train when it was speeding. So, the plaintiff filed a case against the organization for their act which falls under the category of foreseeability and the organization was held liable.
2019 - 04 - 22 - The Historic Judgment of The Madras High Court Madurai Bench Which Banned Intersex Sex-Selective Surgeries in Tamil Nadu State of India
2019 - 04 - 22 - The Historic Judgment of The Madras High Court Madurai Bench Which Banned Intersex Sex-Selective Surgeries in Tamil Nadu State of India
