Study Notes
Key Case | Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963) | Negligence - Damage - Remoteness
- Level:
- A-Level, BTEC National
- Board:
- AQA, Edexcel, OCR, IB, Eduqas, WJEC
Last updated 5 Oct 2020
According to the principles of remoteness of damage, the test does not require that the precise sequence of events needs to be foreseen, although the accident may be a variant of the foreseeable, foreseeability will be satisfied nonetheless.
CASE SUMMARY
Claimant: Injured boy
Defendant: Lord Advocate
Facts: A manhole was left unattended with only a tent to prevent entry, the tent was surrounded by paraffin lamps. The claimant and a friend climbed into the hole and managed to knock one of the lamps down hole causing an explosion.
Outcome: Liable
Legal principle: The defendants were liable as harm was reasonably foreseeable, the test does not require that the precise sequence of events needs to be foreseen. Although the accident was a variant of the foreseeable, an accident was foreseeable nonetheless.