Hughes v. Lord Advocate
United Kingdom House of Lords
[1963] A.C. 837, 2 W.L.R. 779, 1 All E.R. 705
- Written by Dan Lake, JD
Facts
Post Office employees were working in a manhole, underneath the street. The employees took a break and left the manhole open, unguarded, and enclosed by kerosene lanterns. Hughes (plaintiff) and another young boy entered the worksite and managed to knock a lantern into the manhole. After the lantern fell, its kerosene gas contacted the lantern flame causing an explosion and a fire. The explosion caused Hughes to fall into the manhole, where he suffered burns on his body. Hughes brought a negligence claim against the Lord Advocate (defendant), who represented the Post Office employees. 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.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Guest, L.)
Concurrence (Pearce, L.)
Concurrence (Reid, L.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
