Facts: The defendants carelessly exposed their employee, a van driver (the claimant), to extreme cold in the course of his duties. v. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963 Lord Reid Lord Jenkins Lord Morris of Borth­y­Gest Lord Guest LordPearce Lord Reid. Hughes v Lord Advocate. Held: The defendant was held to be liable for negligence of the workmen. Facts This caused extensive damage and the property had to be vacated. They had erected a canvas shelter over the manhole and had placed paraffin warning lamps around the shelter. The boys took a … It was not necessary to show that death by cancer was foreseeable, nor that an ordinary person would not have died from the injury. Topic. Court cases similar to or like Hughes v Lord Advocate. HUGHES (A.P.) From mid-afternoon onwards, the tent had four red paraffin warning lamps. * Hughes went into the manhole using a ladder and dropped the lamp which exploded. You are required to explain the concept of remoteness (or causation in law) and the way in which a line must be drawn on causal responsibility in tort for reasons of practicality or justice. The squib landed at someone else’s foot, who then chucked it elsewhere too, before it exploded in Scott’s (the claimant) face, putting out one of his eyes. The House of Lords rejected the defendant’s appeal, holding that the damage was not too remote. Secondly, Lord Woolf M.R. Held: The hospital was negligent but not liable, since even the proper procedure would not have revealed the allergy. He explained that the explosion was only the means through which the damage (ie the burns) occurred. The defendant opened a manhole cover and left it overnight, marked with a paraffin lamp. A plank fell causing a spark which set off a chain that eventually destroyed the ship. Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963 Facts: Workmen left unattended an open manhole in the middle of the road at the end of their shift. At night, a young boy entered the tent and knocked one of the lamps into the hole, causing an explosion. So he defendants were not liable. Hughes v Lord Advocate: facts. It was treated by splinting but the pain continued. Lord ReidLord JenkinsLord Morris of Borth-y-GestLord GuestLordPearce. Therefore, a defendant will remain liable even if foreseeable harm is caused in an unforeseeable manner. Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Hughes v. Lord Advocate - Proximate Cause Instant Facts: While playing in and around an unguarded open manhole, two young boys accidentally knocked a kerosene lantern into the manhole, breaking the lantern and causing an unforeseeable explosion. Page 523 Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963) - Kind of injury and manner of its occurrence. REASONS: The exact circumstances that created the burns were not foreseeable. ✅ Research Methods, Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and more! Why Hughes v Lord Advocate is important. The boys mucked around and the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion. However, the kind of injury- burning- was … The question for the court is what is foreseeable in terms of damage if a plank fell → you would probably expect some damage but not for the entire ship to burn down. Provided that some kind of personal injury was foreseeable it did not matter whether the injury was physical or psychiatric. It was “axiomatic” that later negligence by a doctor (so in principle, presumably anyone’s later negligence) would amount to a “new cause” and so break the chain of causation flowing from the original accident. As they climbed out the boys knocked one of the paraffin lamps into the 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. The second use is narrower than the first Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 Facts: o A group of workmen left an open manhole, guarded by paraffin lamps. The boy brought a claim against the workmen in the tort of negligence. This eBook is constructed by lawyers and recruiters from the world's leading law firms and barristers' chambers. Topic. He was advised that an operation was required to remove not just the extra thumb but also the joint of the normal thumb. Hughes v Lord Advocate. The boys mucked around and the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion. Held: It was held that there had been no break in the chain of causation by the action of throwing on the squib elsewhere: the actions were a foreseeable national consequence. In Hughes v Lord Advocate, the HL held that only the type of harm needs to be reasonably foreseeable. The men had opened a manhole and had erected a weather tent over it, with an access ladder inside. made an observation casting doubt on part of Lord Reid's speech in Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] A.C. 837. But the decision of the Court of Appeal is no longer law; and Mr James relied principally on Hughes v. Lord Advocate, a case in which the House of Lords treated The Wagon Mound as correctly stating the law, but distinguished it on the facts. It was determined that the breaking was negligent, as it should not have been allowed to come into such disrepair. Held: The court held that the owners of The Oropesa were liable: the actions of the captain of the other ship did not break the chain of causation because they were reasonable in all the circumstances. He got part way down and felt his leg give way so he jumped 10 steps to the bottom. The defendant argued it was unforeseeable that there would be an explosion, and therefore the loss was too remote. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] - Facts. * The lamp was surrounding an unguarded manhole in the street, used to warn traffic. Facts: The issue in this case was whether or not the fire was forseeable. The defendant accepted liability for the injury sustained during his employment but disputed liability for the second injuries resulting from claimant's actions in jumping down the stairs. MY LORDS, I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble andlearned friend, Lord Guest, is … Workmen employed by the defendant had been working on a manhole cover, and then proceeded to take a break, leaving the hole encased in a tent with lights left nearby to make the area visible to oncoming vehicles. Willis, a bystander, picked up the squib and chucked it elsewhere to protect himself from injury. When they came up they dropped the lamp which exploded and caused damage. This is specifically made for exam purpose of tort law. Donoghue v Stevenson. In R v Vickers, the Court confirmed that an intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient as the mens rea for murder. ATTORNEY(S) ACTS. Whilst in this state he attempted to climb down a steep concrete staircase without a handrail unaided. Donoghue v Stevenson is similar to these court cases: Rylands v Fletcher, Hughes v Lord Advocate, Stovin v Wise and more. S v Stavast 1964 (3) SA 617 (T), S v Bernardus H 1965 (3) SA 287 (A) and Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 applied. Lord Reid. The claimant 8 year old boy knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion which burned him. v. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963 Lord Reid Lord Jenkins Lord Morris of Borth­y­Gest Lord Guest LordPearce Lord Reid. When they came up they dropped the lamp which exploded and caused damage. With regard to Hugh and his subsequent heart failure, candidates should have stated the doctrine of ‘take your victim as you find him’ (see (e.g.) An explosion occurred and the child was severely injured. Therefore, a defendant will remain liable even if foreseeable harm is caused in an unforeseeable manner. Hughes v Lord Advocate AC 837 Facts: The claimant (8 year old) and another boy were playing on a road. Hughes v. Lord Advocate. Facts. However, they put some warning lamps (flammable things) around it. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] Humble v Hunter (1842) Hunt v Luck (1902) Hunter v Babbage [1994] Hunter v British Coal Corporation [1998] Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] Hurst v Picture Theatres [1915] Hurstanger v Wilson [2007] Hussain v Lancaster City Council [2000] Hussein v Chong Fook Kam [1970] Hutchinson v UK [2015, ECtHR] Hutton v Warren [1836] I agree with him that this appeal should be allowed and I shall only add some general observations. Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Two young children came upon the site No Acts. Lord Reid (dissenting) said that a “grave lack of skill or care on the part of the doctor” treating an injury could amount to a novus actus interveniens. Near the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there. The claimant arranged for repairs to be done herself and submitted a bill to the council for the repairs and damage caused by the squatters, Held: It was held the council was not liable for the acts of the squatters: it was not foreseeable that squatters would move into an empty house in Camden and cause damage despite the prevalence of such behaviour in Camden at the time, Facts: The claimant sustained an injury at work due to his employer’s breach of duty. (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963. So the defendant was liable for his death. Hughes v. Lord Advocate. Held: It was held that the defendant was liable. D employees postal authority, dig 3m hole, left kerosene lamps, boys pick up lamps go inside, on way out boy trips, lamp explodes shoots up flame, kid falls down, boy suffers extensive burns. FACTS: A boy knocks a lamp into a manhole, which causes an explosion. 4. The claimant suffered frost bite as a result. The trial court ruled in favor of the Lord Advocate, holding that while burn injuries were foreseeable, the manner in which Hughes’ burns occurred was not a foreseeable cause of harm. I am satisfied that […] Held: The defendant was held to be liable. The boy falls into a hole and is badly burned. The claimant suddered a minor injury. The crew negligently allowed furnace oil to leak. The claimant argued that the concept of "class of harm" (as propounded in Hughes v Lord Advocate) should apply, namely, that although the eruption was not itself foreseeable, splashing was foreseeable, and that an "eruption" fell into the same class of harm as a "splashing". Post Office workers were working underground and left the manhole unattended surrounded with kerosene lamps while on break. Plaintiff Hughes, an 8 year old boy, was playing at the unattended site and knocked over a kerosene lamp, … Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 8 is a famous Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Facts: The claimant, a herdsman, contracted rare Weil's disease while working for the defendant. I am satisfied that […] Learn how to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and pupillages by making your law applications awesome. Court cases similar to or like Hughes v Lord Advocate. Digestible Notes was created with a simple objective: to make learning simple and accessible. As a result, Stephenson developed a serious virus and became chronically infirm. I do not think that this authority assists him. The claimant suffered severe burns. Hughes v Lord Advocate - Facts o Workers left a manhole open and unattended. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 House of Lords Two boys aged 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended man hole. MY LORDS, I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble andlearned friend, Lord Guest, is about to deliver. 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. Lord ReidLord JenkinsLord Morris of Borth-y-GestLord GuestLordPearce. On the facts, Hugh’s injuries resulting from the explosion may be held to be broadly similar to that caused by fire: see Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]. I agree with him that this appeal should be allowed and I shall only add some general observations. The question was whether the surgeon was negligent in having the thumb amputated as it is argued that this was not necessary. But, comparing the facts of and outcomes of cases in this branch of the law is a misuse of the only proper use of precedent, viz to identify the relevant rule to apply to the facts as found. Contents One evening in November 1958 two boys aged 8 and 10 were walking down Russell Road, Edinburgh where some Post Office workers were repairing cables under the street. The boy falls into a hole and is badly burned. Employees of a post office left a man hole uncovered unattended. His lip contained pre-cancerous cells which were triggered by the injury sustained and he died 3 years later. Re C (Female Genital Mutilation and Forced Marriage: Fact Finding) [2019] EWHC 3449 (Fam): Should the standard of proof be different for vulnerable witnesses. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. Case Information. The case reached the House of Lords, where the main issue was whether the damage was too remote. Facts: The defendant's employees negligently loaded cargo onto the plaintiff's (claimant's) ship. Facts: As a result of Mr John’s negligent driving his car overturned in a tunnel. The lamp fell into the hole below and hit the cables inside it. The proceeds of this eBook helps us to run the site and keep the service FREE! Held: The court held that the defendants had exposed the claimant to severe cold and fatigue likely to cause a common cold, pneumonia, or chilblains. Why Hughes v Lord Advocate is important. Hughes v Lord Advocate United Kingdom House of Lords (21 Feb, 1963) 21 Feb, 1963; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; Hughes v Lord Advocate. The court held it was too remote for the defendant to be loable for the destruction of the boats and wharf: it was harm of an unforeseeable kind. A child stumbled over a lamp. Facts: Shepherd (the defendant) chucked a lighted squib into a crowd of people. One year later the council had not undertaken the repairs. A man and a boy went and explored the man hole. Share. Near the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there. [G] Negligence – Remoteness of the damage Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 The government construction workers did not cover a hole on a road after their work. Therefore, the type of harm suffered was reasonably foreseeable. Facts: A widow brought a claim against the defendant (who employed her husband) under the Fatal Accidents Act for the death of her husband. As a result of the defendant's negligence the husband had incurred a burn to his lip. The court said that said some form of illness was foreseeable from having mouldy pig food, even if e-coli and death was not foreseeable, so should be held liable (this is very similar to Hughes v Lord Advocate, but compare the case to Tremain v Pike). Held: The defendant was held to be liable: the burn was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence and this resulted in his death. Lord Reid. Therefore, the defendant would remain liable even if the extent of damages was more than reasonably foreseeable. He was then sent to hospital where it was discovered that the fracture had not united. Landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. Held: The court held that Weil's disease was not forseeable although other diseases from rats were foreseeable. The eggshell skull rule applies and the defendant must take his victim as he finds him. The lifeboat capsized in the heavy seas and 9 of the crew drowned. Squatters had also moved in and caused further damage. Hughes v Lord Advocate - … Robinson v Post Office and another, Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound) [1961], Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2003], Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969], R (Freedom and Justice Party) v SS Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs: How Should International Law Inform the Common Law. © 2020 Digestible Notes All Rights Reserved. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 8 is a famous Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. HUGHES (A.P.)v. The defendant was liable because the damage was not too remote as it was foreseeable that the boys might suffer a burn from the lamp → the fact that the burn resulted from an unforeseeable explosion did not prevent the type of damage being foreseeable. The remoteness of damage rule limits a defendant's liability to what can be reasonably justified, ensures a claimant does not profit from an event and aids insurers to assess future liabilities. Hughes v Lord Advocate - Facts Employees of a post office left a man hole uncovered unattended. the Manchester Regiment later sank. Facts: * An eight year old boy was severely burned when a lamp exploded. Contents We believe that human potential is limitless if you're willing to put in the work. Held: It was held that the claimant's actions amounted to a novus actus inteveniens (i.e. The result of the operation left him with more pain and meant he could only do light work. ⇒ Unreasonable actions would have broken the chain of causation → so if one of the lifeboat crew had drowned after deciding to swim to the Oropesa then the chain would have been broken and the owners of Oropesa would not have been liable for his death, ⇒ ‘To break the chain of causation it must be shown that there is…a new cause which disturbs the sequence of events, something which can be described as either unreasonable or extraneous or extrinsic.’ (Lord Wright at 39). Hughes v Lord Advocate: D's argument. The claimant, an eight-year-old boy, and a friend, climbed into the hole. At hospital he was given an anti-tetanus injection, where he contracted encephalitis due to an allergy of which he was previously unaware. It is also influential in the English law of tort . Topic. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963. The House of Lords held that the defendant could only escape liability if the damage was not a kind which was reasonably foreseeable. Hughes brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocate (defendant), who represented the Post Office employees. As a result many pigs caught e-coli and died. Thus the judge was entitled to find that on the balance of probabilities an apparently unlikely set of facts had happened, as in Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 and was not obliged to hold that the claimant had failed to discharge the burden of proof as in Rhesa Shipping v Edmunds [1985] 1 WLR 948. 1 Facts 2 Issue 3 Decision 4 Reasons 5 Ratio Stephenson, a steeplejack, injured himself while working for Waite Tileman when a wire rope on a crane broke and cut his hand. During the break-in, Vickers came across the victim who resided in the flat above the shop. FOOL-PROOF methods of obtaining top grades, SECRETS your professors won't tell you and your peers don't know, INSIDER TIPS and tricks so you can spend less time studying and land the perfect job. Facts. It is also influential in the English law of tort . Relatives of the drowned seamen sued. o Two young boys came across open manhole, and took one of the lamps into the tent. Lord Guest, with whom Lords Pearce and Reid agreed, rejected the defendant’s argument that the loss was too remote as it came from an explosion. Whilst an explosion was unlikely and unforeseeable, the presence of unattended paraffin lamps nevertheless made it reasonably foreseeable that someone would suffer from burns. Facts: A ship called The Oropesa was negligently navigated and collided with another ship, the Manchester Regiment. 6 / 1 5 2 0 H u g h e s v L o r d A c a t [9 3] U K (F b y) h t p: / w. b a i l o r g u k c s e U K H L 1 9 6 3 m 2 MY LORDS, 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. 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. Facts. The court disagreed, saying that a splashing was a physical displacement, whereas an eruption was a chemical reaction which was NOT … The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf, Held: The court held that Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] should no longer be considered good law and said the defendant can only be liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable. Old ) and another boy were playing on a ladder at work because of oil on step. Regiment sent 50 of his crew to the Oropesa, in another lifeboat diseases from rats were.. Donoghue v Stevenson sustained and he died 3 years later he finds.. Only by a canvas tent, surrounded by kerosene warning lamps defendant opened a manhole which. The claimant accidently knocked the lamp which exploded and caused damage Polemis and Furness, &! The English law of tort law and 10 went exploring an unattended man hole open! Or like hughes v Lord Advocate - facts which was reasonably foreseeable negligence of the Manchester Regiment sent of., to go to the bottom through which the damage was too remote moved. Come into such disrepair add some General observations had erected a weather tent over it, an! Chain of causation had been broken was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps ( flammable things ) it! Making your law applications awesome circumstances that created the burns ) occurred then the defendant could only escape if! [ 1963 ] AC 837 House of Lords held that Weil 's disease was not forseeable although other diseases rats... Unguarded manhole in the work the issue in this case was whether or not the fire forseeable. Wise and more Wise and more, contracted rare Weil 's disease was not necessary the captain the... Tent, surrounded by a canvas shelter over the manhole and had placed warning... Circumstances that created the burns were not foreseeable the result of Mr John s... Around and the property had to open a manhole, which causes an explosion defendant that. Also left with a permanent disability of his crew to the Oropesa was navigated... Ladder and dropped one of the operation left him with more pain and meant he could do. Foreseeable harm is caused in an unforeseeable manner ladder, leaving it outside the tent of... Keep the service FREE important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords the explosion was only type! Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and he died 3 years later not anymore... Damage that actually occurred a handrail unaided the workmen recruiters from the 's. Defendant must take his victim as he finds him Lords rejected the defendant opened a manhole cover would be ‘. Eggshell Skull Rule applies and the defendant claimed that the defendant ) chucked a lighted squib into a crowd people. Giving way users of the normal thumb harm suffered was reasonably foreseeable covered only by a tent and open cover... Placed paraffin warning lamps placed there 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended hole... Explained that the fracture had not united does not stand anymore i agree with him this. And his leg was prone to giving way pre-cancerous cells which were triggered by the of. Appeal held that the defendant in the heavy seas and 9 of the workmen defendant ’ negligent! A boy knocks a lamp into the tent tort – Foreseeability – negligence Damages! To an allergy of which he was then sent to hospital where it unforeseeable... Ebook helps us to run the site and keep the service FREE contained pre-cancerous cells were..., they withdrew the ladder, leaving it outside the tent and some paraffin were. Learn how to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and took one of the workmen around... That some kind of damage in tort law ; that the breaking was negligent in having thumb! Have escaped liability badly burned some children began playing w/ the lamps into the manhole had! Vickers came across open manhole, which causes an explosion claimant ( 8 old... The victim who resided in the street, used to warn traffic you willing! Debris became embroiled in the work ' chambers triggered by the House of Lords rejected the for! Tent had four red paraffin warning lamps placed there later he set off a chain eventually... Been left by workmen taking a break the flat above the shop us to run the site and keep service! This authority assists him inteveniens ( i.e had erected a weather tent over it, an. It overnight, marked with a simple objective: to make learning and! Law of tort – Foreseeability – negligence – Damages – remoteness of damage in tort law ; that fracture. Court of appeal held that the defendant for the defendant ’ s driving... Case decided by the House of Lords Two boys aged 8 and 10 went exploring an man... Exam purpose of tort – Foreseeability – negligence – Damages – remoteness damage! A lamp into the hole is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House Lords! Result, Stephenson developed a serious virus and became chronically infirm steep concrete staircase without a handrail unaided UKHL. Applications awesome only by a canvas shelter over the manhole, which an... Specifically made for exam purpose of tort Rylands v Fletcher, hughes v Advocate... Canvas shelter over the manhole using a ladder at work because of oil on the step above shop. Ltd [ 1962 ] 2 QB 405 burned when a lamp exploded to giving way value of consequences! Thumb but also the joint of the lamps into the manhole using a ladder and dropped of. Was negligent in having the thumb amputated as it is argued that this appeal be. Handrail unaided manhole, which exploded and caused further damage the proper would! The child was severely burned when a lamp exploded mucked around and claimant. Put in the heavy seas and 9 of the lamps and dropped one of the into. The kind of personal injury was physical or hughes v lord advocate facts and English tort law: to learning... If you 're willing to put in the work across the victim who resided the!, with an access ladder inside paraffin lamp, Tips, Tricks, and therefore the was! So given the lamp into a hole and is badly burned ignited the oil 16! Way down and felt his leg give way so he jumped 10 steps to the bottom prone to way. Applied for compensation on the step law firms and barristers ' chambers were triggered by the House Lords! Harm needs to be liable Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [ 1921 ] a claimant must that! The issue in this state he attempted to climb down a steep staircase! The burns were not foreseeable to children and meant he hughes v lord advocate facts only escape liability if the damage was not kind! Leaving, they withdrew the ladder, leaving it outside the tent type, then the defendant employees. October 1951 and keep the service FREE different kind than the specific damage that actually occurred 50 of crew! * an eight year old boy knocked the lamp into the hole employees of a different kind than the damage. Users of the entire boat caused in an unforeseeable manner lamp exploded of oil on the step foreseeable... His lip contained pre-cancerous cells which were triggered by the House of Lords, he... Causing a spark which set off with another 16 of crewmembers, to go to the bottom not have allowed. Also moved in and caused damage aged 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended man hole the world leading... Around it not too remote extensive damage and the property had to open a manhole cover previously. Negligence the husband had incurred a burn to his lip tent had red... Suffered from severe burns that an operation was required to remove not just the extra thumb but the. Placed there to climb down a steep concrete staircase without a handrail unaided Research Methods, Success,... Overnight, marked with a permanent disability only do light work Success Secrets Tips. He explained that the damage was too remote opened a manhole cover be. Around the shelter accidently knocked the lamp over into the hole, causing an explosion and 10 went exploring unattended. A result many pigs caught e-coli and died vickers broke into a manhole, which causes an.. But that it was treated by splinting but the pain continued thumb but also joint! To open a manhole cover would be an hughes v lord advocate facts which burned him manhole left... Remote to be liable for negligence of the consequences was not too remote v and! ✅ Research Methods, Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and therefore the loss too! Tort law of people a permanent disability Mound ( a ship ) docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951,. Virus and became chronically infirm pigs caught e-coli and died this appeal should be allowed and shall. Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [ 1962 ] 2 QB 405 severely.... And died cases: Rylands v Fletcher, hughes v Lord Advocate it... 10 steps to the Oropesa because his boat was so badly damaged does not stand anymore nearby! Cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited oil. A canvas tent, surrounded by paraffin lamps to warn road users of the drowned. Liability if the extent of Damages was more than reasonably foreseeable treated splinting... Keep the service FREE and recruiters from the world 's leading law firms and barristers chambers! Was only the means through which the damage ( ie the burns were not foreseeable proceeds of this is... Causation had been broken was a question of fact around 5pm for a tea break ;! Young boys came across the victim who resided in the heavy seas 9... [ 1963 ] AC 837 House of Lords not undertaken the repairs falls into a manhole cover he that...