Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]

Facts

  • The defendant opened a manhole cover and left it overnight, marked with a paraffin lamp
  • The claimant 8 year old boy knocked the lamp into the hole, causing an explosion which burned him

Issue

  • Was the damage foreseeable?

Decision

  • Yes

Reasoning

  • The kind of damage, burning, was foreseeable, therefore the damage actually sustained was also foreseeable (note magnitude exception in Doubty v Turner [1964])
RELATED CASE  Rose v Miles [1815]

Posted in Tort Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 22nd April 2014

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy