In the case of Hughes v Lord Advocate, what did the House of Lords determine regarding a negligent defendant's liability?
Understand the Problem
The question seeks to understand the legal implications of the Hughes v Lord Advocate case, specifically regarding the extent to which a negligent defendant can be held liable for injuries that occur as a result of their actions.
Answer
A defendant can be liable for unforeseeable manner of injury if the type of harm was foreseeable.
The House of Lords determined that a defendant can be liable for negligence even if the specific manner of the injury was unforeseeable, as long as the type of harm was foreseeable.
Answer for screen readers
The House of Lords determined that a defendant can be liable for negligence even if the specific manner of the injury was unforeseeable, as long as the type of harm was foreseeable.
More Information
The case involved determining liability when unexpected details occur within the framework of a foreseeable risk, highlighting the principle that foreseeability needs to focus on the type of harm rather than the precise sequence of events.
Tips
A common mistake is focusing on the precise sequence of events instead of assessing if the broader category of harm was foreseeable.
Sources
- Hughes v Lord Advocate - 1963 - LawTeacher.net - lawteacher.net
- Casebriefs - Hughes v. Lord Advocate - casebriefs.com
- Comprehensive Analysis of Hughes v. Lord Advocate (1963) - casemine.com
AI-generated content may contain errors. Please verify critical information
