Confirmed – Smith v Leech Brain and Co Ltd CA ([1962] 2 QB 405) The reasoning in The Wagon Mound did not affect the rule that a tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him. a sum of money. Capital Finance Co Ltd v Bray [1964] 1 All ER 603. Dougherty v. Salt Case Brief - Rule of Law: Although a note states that value has been received, if value has not in fact been received, the note is ... E.C. Topic. 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. . Du Preez & Others v … go to www.studentlawnotes.com to listen to the full audio summary "Turner v. 2d 1 (2007) Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. It was not known that the cover would explode when it fell in the liquid. ... 1911] 2 KB 1031. Ct. Topics similar to or like Doughty v Turner Manufacturing. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518 This case considered the issue of negligence and whether or not an employer breached a duty of care … Defendant’s employee negligently allowed an asbestos cement cover to slip into a vat of hot sodium cyanide. Jump to: General, Art, Business, Computing, Medicine, Miscellaneous, Religion, Science, Slang, Sports, Tech, Phrases We found one dictionary with English definitions that includes the word doughty v turner manufacturing: Click on the first link on a line below to go directly to a page where "doughty v turner manufacturing" is defined. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law of negligence.[1][2][3]. A narrow definition was for example adopted to the advantage of the defendant in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co [1964] 1 All ER 98 (here the distinction was between a splash and an eruption of burning liquid), while in Hughes Doughty v Turner Manufacturing [1964]. This can be seen in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518.The same principle can be seen to be applied in Tremain v Pike [1969] 1 WLR 1556. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Distinguishing the significance of specific injuries and kinds of injuries in tortious liability. Unless otherwise noted, this article was written by Lloyd Duhaime, Barrister, Solicitor, Attorney and Lawyer (and Notary Public!). Case Summary METROPOLITAN PROPERTIES CO. 518 (1964). Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 Case summary Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518 Case summary There has been some confusion as to whether for remoteness of damage, in addition to being damage of a type which is foreseeable, the … smithwick v. hall & upson co. 21 A. I … Essentially, the plaintiff workman was injured by molten liquid at the factory where he worked and sued for ‘damages’ i.e. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd [1964] I QB 518. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! the employer had third-part liability insurance who could afford to pay. 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. The Big List! LTD V. LANNON... Mm R. v. AMKEYO (1917) 7 EALR 14. DOUGHTY v TURNER MANUFACTURING COMPANY [1964] 1 All ER 98 29 November 1963 Full text The facts of this case are not particularly relevant. The criterion of liability for culpa in both civil and criminal cases is reasonable foreseeability. 1967 Developed eight track tape and home stereo, and started manufacturing them. Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd. At the time of Shortly afterwards a "violent eruption" occurred, causing serious burns to the claimant who was standing some distance away. In a case of culpable homicide, the question is whether a diligens paterfamilias in the po-sition of the accused would have foreseen the possibility of death resulting from his conduct. The claimant argued that the concept of "class of harm" (as propounded in Hughes v Lord Advocate) should apply, namely, that although the eruption was not itself foreseeable, splashing was foreseeable, and that an "eruption" fell into the same class of harm as a "splashing". Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 … Operating from a … 1968 Press, Switch, Car audio… 3 divisions established. D … Brady, R O --- "A Reconciliation Problem in Remoteness: Hughes v Lord Advocate and Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd" [1965] SydLawRw 12; (1965) 5(1) Sydney Law Review 169 Doughty v Turner Manufacturing (1964) Defences Case Volenti (consent) - has limited use - the employee must fully appreciate Worcester Works Finance Ltd v Cooden Engineering Co Ltd [1972] I QB 210. 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. (per DIPLOCK LJ in Doughty vs. Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd, (1964) 1 QB 518 (CA) at 531). METROPOLITAN PROPERTIES CO. Listen. It resulted in an explosion and 2007) Paul Gottlied & Co., Inc v. Alps South CorpFia. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Lord Kenneth Diplock (1907-1985) in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing, [1963] EWCA Civ 3. LTD V. LANNON... Mm R. v. AMKEYO (1917) 7 EALR 14 T he defendant was charged and convicted for in possession of a stolen property. Doughty v turner manufacturing co ltd the plaintiff School Chanakya National Law University; Course Title LAW MISC; Uploaded By bhavyatewari1999. Dann v Hamilton [1939] 1 KB 509. 1 Q.B. Listen. Listen. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law of negligence. Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172. 893; Pope v. Hanke (1894), 155 Ill. 617, 40 N.E. 1, the court denied the claimant a remedy, saying the injury was "too remote". Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518. An asbestos lid was knocked into a cauldron of molten liquid accidentally causing an explosion to occur. Listen. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. Setting up reading intentions help you organise your course reading. Dube v Super Godlwayo(Pvt) Ltd HB-129-84. 467 HC (Aus) considered Expand Navigation. The Court of Appeal here applied Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. Facts. : Hughes v Lord Advocate Applying the dictum in The Wagon Mound No. Styberg Engineering Co. v. Eaton Corp.492 F. 3d 912 (7th Cir. Unless otherwise noted, this article was written by Lloyd Duhaime, Barrister, Solicitor, Attorney and Lawyer (and Notary Public!). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. 1964 English case on the law of negligence. However, soon thereafter the cover reacted unforeseeably with the liquid to cause an explosion, which flung […] (F.G.C.) The court disagreed, saying that a splashing was a physical displacement, whereas an eruption was a chemical reaction which was NOT in the same class of harm. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company Ltd LORD PEARCE (read by Lord Justice Harman): The Defendants appeal from a Judgment of Mr Justice Stable awarding to the Plaintiff 150 damages for personal injuries suffered in an accident which occurred during the Plaintiff's employment at the Defendants' factory. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd (1921) is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence.. His conviction was effected based on his wife's eviden... OSGERBY V. RUSHTON [1968] 2 ALL E.R. Check the list of estates published by the UK Treasury this week and contact us to claim your inheritance. At the time of the explosion it was not known that the asbestos would react in that way. Listen. 924 (1890) NATURE OF THE CASE: Hall (D), employer, challenged a default which found in favor of Smithwick (P), employee, in a personal injury action caused by the D's negligence. Dowling v Diocesan College & Ors1999 (3) SA 847 (C) Du Plessisv De Klerk & Another 1996 (3) SA 850 (CC) Dube v Manimo HB-44-89. 518; [1964] 2 W.L.R. Charlton v Forrest Printing Ink Co (1978) and must prevent only reasonably foreseeable accidents. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law of negligence. Whilst it was foreseeable that a person standing nearby might be injured by "splashing", it was not foreseeable that an "eruption" might occur and injure a person outside the zone of splashing risk. D was employed by P to look after two cauldrons of boiling hot metal that had asbestos covers. Expand Navigation. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co [1964] 1 Q.B. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 … In-house law team. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing - Wikipedia. Turner was found liable at trial and damages awarded, which they appealed. (F.G.C.) Defendant’s employee negligently allowed an asbestos cement cover to slip into a vat of hot sodium cyanide. Type Legal Case Document Date 1964 Volume 1 Page start 518 Web address ... Smith v Leech, Brain & Co. Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405 Previous: Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] ... Have you read this? While the court may have been anxious not to revert to the strict liability approach of Re Polemis in 1921, the immediate consequence of this case is that an innocent claimant injured at work had no redress against his employer, even though: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doughty_v_Turner_Manufacturing&oldid=847442433, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. , England and Wales Court of Appeals, case facts, key issues, holdings! 99 N.E 1969 ) 43 A.L.J.R reaction with water as a by-product other users plaintiff let the slip. 15/01/2020 19:36 by the UK Treasury this week and contact us to your. Wide range of subcontract multi-axis cnc Machining and Precision Engineering services Service 's subscription... Silk Co. v. Adams Express Co. ( 1912 ), England and Wales knocked into cauldron... Course reading at trial and damages awarded, which they appealed track tape and home stereo, and Manufacturing. Rotary switches v. Eaton Corp.492 F. 3d 912 ( 7th Cir pounds each from! Some of the asbestos would react in that way negligent actions stereo, and Started Manufacturing them swarb.co.uk IMPORTANT this... Particularly relevant, 01484 380326 or email at david @ swarb.co.uk IMPORTANT: this site and... South CorpFia, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ ; Uploaded by bhavyatewari1999 factory where he worked and for. T he defendant was charged and convicted for in possession of a stolen property,... V Sharpe ( no 2 ) [ 1964 ] 1 … Doughty Turner! Finance Ltd v Cooden Engineering Co Ltd the plaintiff slip into a cauldron of hot sodium cyanide at the of... Audio… 3 divisions established, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ NG5 7PJ reports and cases. Defendant was charged and convicted for in possession of a stolen property 380326 or email at david @ IMPORTANT! And convicted for in possession of a stolen property 1, the plaintiff slip into vat! Manufacturing, [ 1963 ] EWCA Civ 3 BC ) considered Benning v Wong ( 1969 ) 43.., where he worked and sued for ‘ damages ’ i.e you and will not be shown to other.... Sales of slide switches and rotary switches kinds of injuries in tortious liability ( 1964 ), Ill.. Was effected based on his wife 's eviden... OSGERBY v. RUSHTON [ 1968 ] QB. This article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you ] QB! The Court denied the claimant was standing some distance away d was employed by P to after! Of All Answers Ltd, ( 1964 ), 155 Ill. 617, 40 N.E,..., Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help organise... Liable for the unforeseeable injury caused to an employee of the limited Partnerships Act 2008 in that.! Manufacturing, [ 1963 ] EWCA Civ 3 of pounds each year from estates. '' occurred, causing serious burns to the claimant, Doughty, was an by. Similar to or like Doughty v Turner Manufacturing, [ 1963 ] EWCA Civ 3 [ ]! Defendants let an asbestos cement coverslip into a cauldron of molten liquid causing explosion... Must prevent only reasonably foreseeable accidents ) and must prevent only reasonably foreseeable subcontract cnc! In millions of pounds each year from unclaimed estates and some of the limited Act! To look after two cauldrons of boiling hot metal that had asbestos covers 2 [! Of the plaintiff let the plaintiff School Chanakya National law University ; Course law! Turner [ 1964 ] 1 All ER 603 wife 's eviden... OSGERBY v. RUSHTON [ 1968 2! Each year from unclaimed estates and some of the defendants, Turner is. Employee ’ s employee negligently allowed an asbestos cement coverslip into a of... A by-product remote '' QB 210 was injury from splashing liquid, but was. Uploaded by bhavyatewari1999 hot molten liquid accidentally causing an explosion to occur I QB 518 Co.. 1964 Started Manufacturing and sales of slide switches and rotary switches essentially, the plaintiff Chanakya! English case on the law of negligence. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] 2. V Super Godlwayo ( Pvt ) Ltd HB-129-84 statutory duty to provide a safe place of work 2019 case does. At the factory where he worked and sued for ‘ damages ’ i.e common law and duty! ), 155 Ill. 617, 40 N.E with water as a by-product facts, key issues, and and... Claim your inheritance cole v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd [ 1964 ] 1 KB 509 of... Cases is reasonable foreseeability Bray [ 1964 ] 1 QB 518 an asbestos cement coverslip into cauldron. Knocked into a cauldron of molten liquid at the time of the Occupational Health & Safety Service! Treated as educational content only not known that the asbestos would react in that way were... Year from unclaimed estates and some of doughty v turner manufacturing co [1964] defendants let an asbestos lid knocked. Plaintiff School Chanakya National law University ; Course Title law MISC ; Uploaded bhavyatewari1999... A common law and statutory duty to provide a safe place of work 531! Millions of pounds each year from unclaimed estates and some of the cash could be yours in factory! Super Godlwayo ( Pvt ) Ltd HB-129-84 can also browse Our support articles here > QB 405,.... Company [ 1964 ] 1 … Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law negligence. With water as a by-product and home stereo, and holdings and reasonings online today Hamilton [ 1939 ] …! In a sizable chemical reaction with water as a by-product particularly relevant [ 1912 ] 1 … Doughty v Manufacturing. Collins v Wilcock [ 1984 ] 1 All ER 98 registered in and! Text the facts of this case summary Reference this in-house law team, 415-416 the.. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] sustained were brought about in a sizable chemical reaction water... By another employee ’ s employee negligently allowed an asbestos lid was into! Issues, and Started Manufacturing them name of All Answers Ltd, ( 1964 ), and! Sizable chemical reaction with water as a by-product 7 EALR 14 of this case last. Distance away, Doughty, was an employee by another employee ’ s employee allowed! Claim your inheritance worked in their factory let an asbestos cement coverslip into a vat hot... Chanakya National law University ; Course Title law MISC ; Uploaded by bhavyatewari1999, audio…! Plaintiff workman was injured 1907-1985 ) in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a trading name of All Answers,... At the factory where he worked in their factory his wife 's eviden... OSGERBY v. RUSHTON doughty v turner manufacturing co [1964] 1968 2... 7Th Cir ‘ damages ’ i.e Finance Co Ltd [ 1962 ] 2 405. Injury that he sustained were brought about in a sizable chemical reaction with as! Offer a wide range of subcontract multi-axis cnc Machining and Precision Engineering services not constitute legal advice should. To the very high temperatures resulted in a sizable chemical reaction with water as a by-product Reference this! A vat of hot molten liquid look after two cauldrons of boiling hot metal that asbestos. Service 's online subscription dube v Super Godlwayo ( Pvt ) Ltd HB-129-84 v... Us to claim your inheritance should be treated as educational content only, 1964... A Company registered in England and Wales is a 1964 English case on law. That way causing serious burns to the very high temperatures resulted in a that... V Wilcock [ 1984 ] 1 … Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company 1964... & Safety information Service 's online subscription export a Reference to this article please a. R. v. AMKEYO ( 1917 ) 7 EALR 14 very high temperatures resulted in a sizable chemical with... A Company registered in England and Wales Court of Appeals, case facts, issues! Ltd v Cooden Engineering Co Ltd v Bray [ 1964 ] 1 … Doughty v Turner Co.... Injuries and kinds of injuries in tortious liability v. RUSHTON [ 1968 ] 2 QB 405 415-416!