← All Authorities
United Kingdom Leading Case causation legal remoteness

Hughes v Lord Advocate

[1963] AC 837
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtUK House of Lords
Year1963
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Liability attaches where the type of injury was foreseeable, even if the precise manner or extent of harm was not.

Key Principle

if the type of injury is foreseeable, the precise mechanism and extent need not be

Area of Law

Tort — Causation, Remoteness and Damages

Related Cases

Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20

Where multiple defendants materially contributed to the risk of mesothelioma, liability is proportionate to the period of exposure rather than joint and several.

Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41

In informed consent cases, causation is satisfied on a policy basis even where the claimant cannot prove they would have avoided surgery but-for the failure to warn.

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22

Where multiple tortfeasors each materially contributed to the risk of harm, proof of material contribution to risk suffices to establish causation in negligence.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Hughes v Lord Advocate and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Hughes v Lord Advocate