Causation in law (application of tests)

Question 1

Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)

Answer 1

Facts
Workmen employed by the defendant had been working on a manhole cover, and then proceeded to take a break, leaving the hole encased in a tent with lights left nearby to make the area visible to oncoming vehicles. Two young boys, the claimants, encountered the uncovered and unattended man hole and proceeded to climb down to see inside of it, bringing with them one of the paraffin lamps left out by the workmen. The lamp was subsequently dropped and caused a significant explosion which left both of the boys with extensive injuries from the fire. The defendant submitted that such an action would have caused this outcome was deemed unforeseeable.

Issues
Whether a party can be found liable for injuries that could not have been specifically envisaged as resulting from their actions, even where the kind of injury was a foreseeable consequence.

Decision/Outcome
Here the House of Lords found for the claimants, and held that whilst it was indeed reasonably unforeseeable that a dropped lamp in the manhole would have resulted in an explosion of the size that occurred, this did not alter the fact that it was reasonably foreseeable that a person may have burnt themselves on the unattended paraffin lamps. The emphasis here was placed on the foreseeability of the kind of damage rather than the specific actual damage as this was considered too high a standard.

Question 2

Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1964]

Answer 2

Facts
The claimant, Doughty, was an employee of the defendants, Turner Manufacturing Company, where he worked in their factory. Doughty was injured when another employee accidentally knocked a container cover which resulted in some asbestos cement falling into a nearby vat of molten liquid. The exposure of the asbestos to the very high temperatures resulted in a sizable chemical reaction with water as a by-product. The introduction of large quantities of water within the molten liquid caused an eruption of steam shortly after, injuring Doughty. Doughty contended that whilst the incident itself was not foreseeable, an incident of its kind was, making the defendants liable, as per Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All ER 705

Issues
Could an employer be held liable for the unforeseeable injury caused to an employee by another employee’s negligent actions.

Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal here applied Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. 1) [1961] AC 388 and thus held that the defendants were not liable here as the events failed the remoteness test in that the reasonable person would not have been able to foresee such an eruption of steam. Whilst the claimant submitted that splashing from the molten liquid was a foreseeable and comparable occurrence, the Court disagreed, finding that the nature of the accident was an unforeseeable one, both specifically and in terms of the kind of event as the cause of the chemical reaction by the exposure of asbestos cement to high temperatures was unpredictable.