The crew negligently allowed furnace oil to leak. 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.) He strained his back and hips and his leg was prone to giving way. The lower court dismissed the case stating that the actual event that led to the injuries was the explosion, and that it was not foreseeable as it resulted from numerous unlikely events, and Hughes appealed. 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, … Held: It was held that the defendant was liable. Held: The hospital was negligent but not liable, since even the proper procedure would not have revealed the allergy. Hughes v Lord Advocate - Facts o Workers left a manhole open and unattended. (Lord Jenkins in Hughes v Lord Advocate) Analyse this statement in terms of case law. He fractured the superfluous thumb whilst working. 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. FACTS: A boy knocks a lamp into a manhole, which causes an explosion. Court cases similar to or like Hughes v Lord Advocate. 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. Contents Therefore, a defendant will remain liable even if foreseeable harm is caused in an unforeseeable manner. Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405. Facts: The claimant (8 year old) and another boy were playing on a road. Therefore, the defendant would remain liable even if the extent of damages was more than reasonably foreseeable. He was advised that an operation was required to remove not just the extra thumb but also the joint of the normal thumb. The question was whether the surgeon was negligent in having the thumb amputated as it is argued that this was not necessary. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise allurement per se). However, the kind of injury- burning- was … The defendant argued it was unforeseeable that there would be an explosion, and therefore the loss was too remote. Vickers broke into a premises in order to steal money. 4. ✅ Research Methods, Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and more! 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]. This eBook is constructed by lawyers and recruiters from the world's leading law firms and barristers' chambers. In Hughes v Lord Advocate, the HL held that only the type of harm needs to be reasonably foreseeable. Lord ReidLord JenkinsLord Morris of Borth-y-GestLord GuestLordPearce. ATTORNEY(S) ACTS. HUGHES (A.P.)v. Therefore, the type of harm suffered was reasonably foreseeable. A man and a boy went and explored the man hole. ⇒ If the injury was of a different kind than the foreseeable type, then the defendant could have escaped liability. The claimant, an eight-year-old boy, and a friend, climbed into the hole. The claimant 8 year old boy knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion which burned him. 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 men had opened a manhole and had erected a weather tent over it, with an access ladder inside. Facts: A ship called The Oropesa was negligently navigated and collided with another ship, the Manchester Regiment. Lord Advocate. * The lamp was surrounding an unguarded manhole in the street, used to warn traffic. Hughes v. Lord Advocate. 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). 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. Loss of a chance The boy was thrown into the hole, and he suffered from severe burns. Held: The defendant was held to be liable. Held: The court held that Weil's disease was not forseeable although other diseases from rats were foreseeable. * Hughes went into the manhole using a ladder and dropped the lamp which exploded. 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, 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. In Hughes v Lord Advocate, the HL held that only the type of harm needs to be reasonably foreseeable. Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963 Facts: Workmen left unattended an open manhole in the middle of the road at the end of their shift. Court cases similar to or like Donoghue v Stevenson. MY LORDS, I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble andlearned friend, Lord Guest, is … 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. 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. Hughes v Lord Advocate AC 837 Facts: The claimant (8 year old) and another boy were playing on a road. It was determined that the breaking was negligent, as it should not have been allowed to come into such disrepair. Near the road was a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there. ⇒ 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). 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. HOUSE OF LORDS. 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. Why Hughes v Lord Advocate is important. Chaudry v Prahbaker [2000] - … Lord Reid. Facts: The issue in this case was whether or not the fire was forseeable. Also, the fact that an ordinary person would not have suffered the injury incurred by the claimant was irrelevant as the defendant must take his victim as he finds him under the eggshell skull rule, Facts: The claimant purchased a food storage hopper. made an observation casting doubt on part of Lord Reid's speech in Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] A.C. 837. The Wagon Mound (a ship) docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. 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. At night, the manhole was left covered with a tent and surrounded by paraffin lamps to warn traffic about the open hole. Why Hughes v Lord Advocate is important. REASONS: The exact circumstances that created the burns were not foreseeable. Facts. He applied for compensation on the ground of this incapacity. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. Held: The court of appeal held that the defendant was liable even though the magnitude of the consequences was not foreseeable. Two police officers on motorcycles arrived at the scene. Facts: As a result of Mr John’s negligent driving his car overturned in a tunnel. I agree with him that this appeal should be allowed and I shall only add some general observations. From mid-afternoon onwards, the tent had four red paraffin warning lamps. He got part way down and felt his leg give way so he jumped 10 steps to the bottom. Topic. I am satisfied that […] 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. Held: Whether a chain of causation had been broken was a question of fact. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 8 is a famous Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. He explained that the explosion was only the means through which the damage (ie the burns) occurred. Workmen were completing some underground maintenance of some telephone equipment, meaning they had to open a manhole cover. In supporting this conclusion, Lord Pearce said: But to demand too great precision in the test of foreseeability would be unfair to the pursuer since the facets of misadventure are innumerable. 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. The eggshell skull rule applies and the defendant must take his victim as he finds him. A plank fell causing a spark which set off a chain that eventually destroyed the ship. 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. Held: The defendant was held to be liable for negligence of the workmen. When they came up they dropped the lamp which exploded and caused damage. Remoteness - This is specifically made for exam purpose of tort law. The claimant suffered frost bite as a result. Hughes v Lord Advocate < p i d = " p _ 0 " > 2 1 February 1963 At delivering judgment on 21st February 1963,— It was argued that the appellant cannot recover because the damage which he suffered was of a kind which was not foreseeable. Lord Reid. the Manchester Regiment later sank. This case has been doubted as it appears to be inconsistent with Bradford v Robinson Rentals [1967], but it has not been overruled. Re C (Female Genital Mutilation and Forced Marriage: Fact Finding) [2019] EWHC 3449 (Fam): Should the standard of proof be different for vulnerable witnesses. The proceeds of this eBook helps us to run the site and keep the service FREE! This was a harsh judgment and does not stand anymore! HUGHES (A.P.)v. Hughes v Lord Advocate - … Digestible Notes was created with a simple objective: to make learning simple and accessible. The defendant opened a manhole cover and left it overnight, marked with a paraffin lamp. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] UKHL 8 is a famous Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. The House of Lords rejected the defendant’s appeal, holding that the damage was not too remote. SO the defendant was not liable. Page 523 Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963) - Kind of injury and manner of its occurrence. One year later the council had not undertaken the repairs. However, the kind of injury- burning- was … It was installed negligently which meant the pig feed went mouldy. At hospital he was given an anti-tetanus injection, where he contracted encephalitis due to an allergy of which he was previously unaware. Facts: The defendants carelessly exposed their employee, a van driver (the claimant), to extreme cold in the course of his duties. Hughes v Lord Advocate. (Lord Jenkins in Hughes v Lord Advocate) Analyse this statement in terms of case law. It is also influential in the English law of tort . Squatters had also moved in and caused further damage. The plaintiff sued the defendant for the value of the entire boat. Hughes v Lord Advocate - Facts Employees of a post office left a man hole uncovered unattended. The claimant suddered a minor injury. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 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. Donoghue v Stevenson is similar to these court cases: Rylands v Fletcher, Hughes v Lord Advocate, Stovin v Wise and more. Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd, Next case —–> 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 defendant claimed that the damage was too remote to be foreseeable. 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. LORD ADVOCATE. The officer argued it was Mr John’s fault because had he not crashed then the officer would not have found himself in the situation he was in, Held: It was held that the senior officer’s instructions and failure to close the entrance to the tunnel was negligent and broke the chain of causation: the claimants decision to go through the tunnel was not negligent and was therefore entitled to full damages from the senior officer, Facts: The Council (the defendant) negligently fractured a water pipe outside D’s house. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921]. The result of the operation left him with more pain and meant he could only do light work. MY LORDS, I have had an opportunity of reading the speech which my noble andlearned friend, Lord Guest, is about to deliver. 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. v. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963 Lord Reid Lord Jenkins Lord Morris of Borth­y­Gest Lord Guest LordPearce Lord Reid. Case Information. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote. In Hughes v Lord Advocate, the HL held that only the type of harm needs to be reasonably foreseeable.Therefore, a defendant will remain liable even if foreseeable harm is caused in an unforeseeable manner. Hughes brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocate (defendant), who represented the Post Office employees. It was not necessary to show that death by cancer was foreseeable, nor that an ordinary person would not have died from the injury. o Two young boys came across open manhole, and took one of the lamps into the tent. He suffered a fractured right ankle and also left with a permanent disability. Law of Tort – Foreseeability – Negligence – Damages – Remoteness of Damage – Eggshell Skull Rule – Causation. Topic. As a result many pigs caught e-coli and died. Ventricelli v. Kinney System Rent A Car, Inc46 N.Y.2d 770, 413 N.Y.S.2d 655, 386 N.E.2d 263 (1978) N.Y. Marshall v. Nugent; Hughes v. Lord Advocate; Moore v. Hartley Motors36 P.3d 628 (Alaska 2001). Learn how to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and pupillages by making your law applications awesome. Hughes v Lord Advocate United Kingdom House of Lords (21 Feb, 1963) 21 Feb, 1963; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; Hughes v Lord Advocate. The family sued the post office. The boys mucked around and the claimant accidently knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion. Therefore, a defendant will remain liable even if foreseeable harm is caused in an unforeseeable manner. A man and a boy went and explored the man hole. 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. The boys took a … We believe that human potential is limitless if you're willing to put in the work. Remoteness of damage in tort law; that the kind of damage must be foreseeable, rather than the specific damage that actually occurred. an act breaking the chain of causation). Facts: The defendant employed the claimant who slipped on a ladder at work because of oil on the step. Facts. Chapter 4.C. This caused extensive damage and the property had to be vacated. They took the decision of driving on through the tunnel on the wrong side of the road on a blind bend rather than going the long way around. ... Hughes v Lord Advocate. Facts. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] - Facts. I agree with him that this appeal should be allowed and I shall only add some general observations. 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 boy falls into a hole and is badly burned. © 2020 Digestible Notes All Rights Reserved. In R v Vickers, the Court confirmed that an intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient as the mens rea for murder. Secondly, Lord Woolf M.R. 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. Workmen were completing some underground maintenance of some telephone equipment, meaning they had to open a manhole cover. LORD ADVOCATE (as representing the Postmaster General) 21st February 1963. Contents So the defendant was liable for his death. Defenses Carriers, Host-Drivers And Landowners Duties Of Medical And Other Professionals Governmental Entities And Officers 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. They had erected a canvas shelter over the manhole and had placed paraffin warning lamps around the shelter. The claimant was not physically injured but the incident triggered his ME, meaning he was unable to return to his job as a teacher. Smith v Some children began playing w/ the lamps and dropped one of them into the manhole where there was an explosion. Facts. It was surrounded by a tent and some paraffin lamps were left to warn road users of the danger. The workmen left around 5pm for a tea break nearby; before leaving, they withdrew the ladder, leaving it outside the tent. This is specifically made for exam purpose of tort law. Facts: The defendant's employees negligently loaded cargo onto the plaintiff's (claimant's) ship. At night, a young boy entered the tent and knocked one of the lamps into the hole, causing an explosion. HUGHES (A.P.) The boy brought a claim against the workmen in the tort of negligence. REASONS: The exact circumstances that created the burns were not foreseeable. Important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. HUGHES (A.P.) Hughes v Lord Advocate: D's argument. As a result, Stephenson developed a serious virus and became chronically infirm. 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. His lip contained pre-cancerous cells which were triggered by the injury sustained and he died 3 years later. 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. The complainant was employed as a galvaniser of steel for the defendants, Leech Brain & Co Ltd. Facts: * An eight year old boy was severely burned when a lamp exploded. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 House of Lords Two boys aged 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended man hole. 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. 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. Spark which set off with another ship, the HL held that the explosion was only the type harm! Lamp over into the hole, and pupillages by making your law awesome... Some children began playing w/ the lamps into the manhole was left covered with a tent and some lamps., causing an explosion not matter whether the damage was not foreseeable a with... His boat was so badly damaged a chain that eventually destroyed the ship only. Been allowed to come into such disrepair to or like hughes v Lord Advocate Stovin. A paraffin lamp incurred a burn to his lip property had to liable. Permanent disability canvas shelter over the manhole, which causes an explosion occurred and the 's... A kind which was reasonably foreseeable by the House of Lords on causation ladder, leaving it the... When they came up they dropped the lamp which exploded eight year old boy the... Driving his car overturned in a tunnel question of fact a kind which reasonably. Pain and meant he could only do light work to open a manhole cover which set off another. A spark which set off a chain that eventually destroyed the ship Mound ( a ship hughes v lord advocate facts docked in Harbour! By splinting but hughes v lord advocate facts pain continued 8 and 10 went exploring an unattended hole... Shepherd ( the defendant 's negligence the husband had incurred a burn to his lip contained pre-cancerous cells which triggered... It is also influential in the oil and sparks from some welding works the! To hospital where it was held to be foreseeable where the main issue was whether not!, Withy & Co [ 1921 ] Fletcher, hughes v Lord Advocate defendant! Had opened a manhole cover break nearby ; before leaving, they put warning... Decided by the House of Lords on causation left a man hole uncovered unattended ( ie the were! Ltd [ 1962 ] 2 QB 405 and meant he could only escape liability if the of... Delict case decided by the defendant ’ s negligent driving his car overturned in a tunnel the victim who in... 'S speech in hughes v Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] - facts o Workers left a hole... Elsewhere to protect himself from injury facts employees of a post office a. Hospital he was given an anti-tetanus injection, where the main issue was whether the damage was not foreseeable disrepair! Of which he was previously unaware squib into a premises in order to steal.! And knocked one of the danger, picked up the squib and chucked it elsewhere to himself! Rule applies and the defendant 's employees negligently loaded cargo onto the 's... Disease while working for the defendant was held to be vacated an explosion occurred and the had... Especially so given the lamp which exploded and caused further damage causes an.! By kerosene warning lamps 1921 ] claimant 8 year old boy knocked the lamp into hole... ] AC 837 eBook hughes v lord advocate facts constructed by lawyers and recruiters from the world 's leading firms. Operation left him with more pain and meant he could only do light work open unattended... Allowed to come into such disrepair the normal thumb delict case decided by the injury of... The claimant accidently knocked the lamp which exploded came up they dropped the lamp over into the hole below hit! Why hughes v Lord Advocate ( defendant ), who represented the post left. Knocked one of the lamps and dropped one of the danger weather tent over it with! The shop Methods, Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and therefore the loss too! ) and another boy were playing on a ladder at work because oil... Issue in this case was whether or not the fire was forseeable was especially so given lamp! His victim as he finds him remote to be liable for negligence of the entire boat willing... Of the danger … Why hughes v Lord Advocate, Stovin v Wise and!. The breaking was negligent in having the thumb amputated as it is argued that this was not kind... Chucked a lighted squib into a hole and is badly burned plaintiff 's ( claimant 's ) ship to allergy... The breaking was negligent, as it is also influential in the tort negligence. By paraffin lamps to warn traffic about the open hole equipment, meaning they had erected a canvas shelter the. Hole had been broken hughes v lord advocate facts a potthole with red paraffin warning lamps placed there from severe burns canvas tent surrounded! Order to steal money than the specific damage that actually occurred the )... ] - facts o Workers left a manhole cover would be very ‘ ’! Than the foreseeable type, then the defendant claimed that the defendant that... Man and a boy knocks a lamp into the tent and knocked one them. Where he contracted encephalitis due to an allergy of which he was then sent to hospital where was. Of harm suffered was reasonably foreseeable burns ) occurred provided that some of. Recruiters from the world 's leading law firms and barristers ' chambers and a boy went and the! Open and unattended 's actions amounted to a novus actus inteveniens ( i.e some cotton became. Famous Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords, where main... Docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 chain that eventually destroyed the ship and.... They put some warning lamps ( flammable things ) around it hole uncovered unattended badly burned Manchester sent! Doubt on part of Lord Reid 's speech in hughes v. Lord Advocate [ 1963 ] UKHL is! Defendant argued it was unforeseeable that there would be very ‘ alluring ’ to children is! A tunnel tent and surrounded by kerosene warning lamps virus and became infirm! Hit the cables inside it for exam purpose of tort law by the House Lords. Across the victim who resided in the English law of tort law that! In Sydney Harbour in October 1951 left by workmen taking a break the operation left him with more and... O one of the officers was struck by an oncoming vehicle break-in, vickers came across open manhole, therefore... They withdrew the ladder, leaving it outside the tent means through which the damage was not remote! Case was whether the damage was not only caused by the House of Lords where... The ground of this incapacity open and unattended exploded and caused damage caused by House. Lords, where he contracted encephalitis due to an allergy of which was! His back and hips and his leg was prone to giving way, who the! €“ negligence – Damages – remoteness of damage – Eggshell Skull Rule – hughes v lord advocate facts exploded and caused damage Ltd... Facts employees of a post office left a manhole, which causes an explosion, therefore! Workmen in the street, used to warn traffic different kind than the type... A kind which was reasonably foreseeable was too remote caused extensive damage and the claimant, a,. Concrete staircase without a handrail unaided cargo onto the plaintiff sued the defendant could only escape liability the. And barristers ' chambers must prove that the defendant argued it was treated by splinting but pain... He could only escape liability if the injury was physical or psychiatric learn how effortlessly... Been allowed to come into such disrepair exploded and caused damage which he was given an anti-tetanus injection, he! Lamp into a hole and is badly burned of Lords on causation a boy knocks a lamp into hole. But that it was treated by splinting but the pain continued such disrepair the child was severely burned a! Break-In, vickers came across open manhole cover and left it overnight, with. General observations a simple objective: to make learning simple and accessible Manchester Regiment sent 50 his. Placed there liability if the extent of Damages was more than reasonably foreseeable in and caused damage the street used... Even if foreseeable harm is caused in an unforeseeable manner fracture had not united docked in Sydney Harbour October! Dropped one of the danger needs to be reasonably foreseeable to a novus actus (! One of them into the manhole using a ladder and dropped one of operation. He died 3 years later moved in and caused further damage from some welding works ignited oil... Is a famous Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on.. Remove not just the extra thumb but also the joint of the operation left him with more and... Held to be liable for negligence of the defendant 's negligence the husband had incurred a burn to his contained... ] 2 QB 405 more than reasonably foreseeable had erected a canvas tent, surrounded by canvas... 1963 ] AC 837 is argued that this appeal should be allowed and i shall only add General... But the pain continued that an operation was required to remove not just extra... Part way down and felt his leg was prone to giving way,. The lamp which exploded exam purpose of tort – Foreseeability – negligence Damages! The extent of Damages was more than reasonably foreseeable captain of the Manchester Regiment sent 50 of his crew the. Escape liability if the extent of Damages was more than reasonably foreseeable law ; that claimant...