Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837

Facts

  • Employees of the Post Office left an open manhole on a public street, covered only by a tent and illuminated by paraffin lamps.
  • Two young boys discovered the site, entered the tent, and climbed into the manhole.
  • During their actions, one of the boys accidentally knocked over a paraffin lamp, causing an explosion that resulted in severe burns.
  • The pursuer sought damages for negligence, alleging that the harm was the result of the defendant’s breach of duty.
  • The Scottish Court of Sessions initially denied damages, finding the precise manner of injury not reasonably foreseeable.
  • The decision was appealed to the Privy Council.

Issues

  1. Whether liability in negligence requires foreseeability of the precise manner in which harm occurs, or only the general type or kind of harm.
  2. Whether the explosion and resulting burns were within the scope of foreseeable injury created by leaving paraffin lamps unattended at an open manhole.

Decision

  • The Privy Council allowed the appeal and held in favour of the claimant.
  • It determined that liability in negligence exists where the general type of harm is foreseeable, even if the specific manner or extent is not.
  • The Court found that it was reasonably foreseeable that the unattended paraffin lamps posed a risk of burns, regardless of the particular mechanics of the explosion.
  • The denial of damages by the lower court, based on unforeseeability of the precise accident, was overturned.

Legal Principles

  • In negligence, the requirement for foreseeability concerns the general type or kind of damage, not the precise sequence of events leading to it.
  • Liability is established if harm of a foreseeable character arises, even if caused by an unforeseeable or unusual mechanism.
  • The principle clarified that foreseeability relates to the category of injury rather than its manner or extent.
  • This principle aligns with the reasoning in The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] AC 388 regarding remoteness, but further clarifies that the exact chain of events need not be foreseeable.
  • The case distinguished itself from positions suggesting foreseeability of the manner of injury is required, as criticized in Crossley v Rawlinson [1981] 1 WLR 369.
  • Later applied in cases such as Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 1 WLR 1082 and Bradford v Robinson Rentals Ltd [1967] 1 All ER 267.

Conclusion

Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 established that in negligence the precise manner in which damage is caused does not need to be foreseeable, provided the general type of harm was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct. This principle has become fundamental in assessing remoteness and liability in negligence.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal