The claimant, Doughty, was an employee of the defendants, Turner Manufacturing Company, where he worked in their factory. 1, the court denied the claimant a remedy, saying the injury was "too remote". [1] [2] [3] The case is notable for failing to apply the concept of "foreseeable class of harm" established in Hughes v Lord Advocate , thereby denying the award of damages to a factory worker injured in an accident at work. The introduction of large quantities of water within the molten liquid caused an eruption of steam shortly after, injuring Doughty. 893; Pope v. Hanke (1894), 155 Ill. 617, 40 N.E. "Turner v. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd The plaintiff was employed by the. Accessed 27 Nov. 2020. It was not known that the cover would explode when it fell in the liquid. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! go to www.studentlawnotes.com to listen to the full audio summary 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 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? (per DIPLOCK LJ in Doughty vs. Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd, (1964) 1 QB 518 (CA) at 531). Topics similar to or like Doughty v Turner Manufacturing. App., 985 So. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company: Case analysis. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. DOUGHTY v TURNER MANUFACTURING COMPANY [1964] 1 All ER 98. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. METROPOLITAN PROPERTIES CO. The Big List! Lord Kenneth Diplock (1907-1985) in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing, [1963] EWCA Civ 3. Some other workmen of the defendants let an asbestos cement coverslip into a cauldron of hot molten liquid. We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co (Ltd) [1964] 1 All ER 98. > Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 1 Q.B. 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. Company Registration No: 4964706. The foreseeable risk was injury from splashing liquid, but there was little splash and no one was injured. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Midway Manufacturing Co. 1963 Pinball / Electro-Mechanical Racer Doughty & Barrett 1896 Arcade Racer Midway Manufacturing Co. 1975 Videogame Racing Racer, The unknown 1920 Arcade / Racing Unknown Racers Playmatic Dube v Super Godlwayo(Pvt) Ltd HB-129-84. Judgement for the case Doughty v Turner. 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. : Hughes v Lord Advocate A fellow employee of the plaintiff let the plaintiff slip into a cauldron of molten metal. sum of money. A factory worker who was lowering an lid with an asbestos-cement lining onto a cauldron of hot acidic liquid accidentally knocked the lid into the liquid. 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. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. 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. Turner was found liable at trial and damages awarded, which they appealed. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 … Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is similar to these topics: Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd, Norwich City Council v Harvey, Stovin v Wise and more. 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 … Essentially, the plaintiff workman was injured by molten liquid at the factory where he worked and sued for ‘damages’ i.e. The Treasury takes in millions of pounds each year from unclaimed estates and some of the cash could be yours! Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172. 518 (1964). torts Flowchart 1. Your reading intentions are private to you and will not be shown to other users. *You can also browse our support articles here >. 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518 CA (UK Caselaw) 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 Expand Navigation. R v Doughty [1986] Facts. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing (1964) Defences Case Volenti (consent) - has limited use - the employee must fully appreciate go to www.studentlawnotes.com to listen to the full audio summary Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405, 415-416. Expand Navigation. Listen. The claimant, Doughty, was an employee of the defendants, Turner Manufacturing Company, where he worked in their factory. Charlton v Forrest Printing Ink Co (1978) and must prevent only reasonably foreseeable accidents. What are reading intentions? I … Lord Kenneth Diplock (1907-1985) in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing, [1963] EWCA Civ 3. Further reliance was placed on two Illinois Supreme Court cases stressing the evil or repugnant result which would obtain if foreign law were enforced. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. The Claimant suffered burns from the explosion. Doughty v Turner Ltd: CA 1964. 518; [1964] 2 W.L.R. (2d) 712 Sup Ct (BC) considered Benning v Wong (1969) 43 A.L.J.R. In the past, Carlene has also been known as Carlene Harriet Schriever, Carlene H Schriever, Carley H Schriever and Carlene J Schriever. ( Nonotuck Silk Co. v. Adams Express Co. (1912), 256 Ill. 66, 99 N.E. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law of negligence.[1][2][3]. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd Court Court of Appeal of England and Wales Decided 1921 Citation(s) 3 KB 560 The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be deemed liable for all consequences flowing from his negligent conduct regardless of how … Share. METROPOLITAN PROPERTIES CO. Listen. the employer had a common law and statutory duty to provide a safe place of work. 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. I am satisfied that this limited partnership has ceas Get Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co., Ltd., 1 Q.B. Defendant’s employee negligently allowed an asbestos cement cover to slip into a vat of hot sodium cyanide. The foreseeable risk was injury from splashing liquid, but there was little splash and no one was injured. Cole v Turner (1704) 87 ER 907. The Court of Appeal here applied Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. 1964 Started manufacturing and sales of slide switches and rotary switches. It makes it easy to scan through your lists and keep Dukes v Marthinusen 1937 AD 12. Shortly afterwards a "violent eruption" occurred, causing serious burns to the claimant who was standing some distance away. 2d 1 (2007) The exposure of the asbestos to the very high temperatures resulted in a sizable chemical reaction with water as a by-product. Du Preez & Others v … Listen. 240; [1964] 1 All E.R. [1][2][3] His conviction was effected based on his wife's eviden... OSGERBY V. RUSHTON [1968] 2 ALL E.R. (F.G.C.) 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. Capital Finance Co Ltd v Bray [1964] 1 All ER 603. 1968 Press, Switch, Car audio… 3 divisions established. Check the list of estates published by the UK Treasury this week and contact us to claim your inheritance. Tel: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david@swarb.co.uk IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. . Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd (1921) is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence.. [Case Law Tort] ['foreseeability' test] Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518 CA - Duration: 6:33. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 All Er 98 - CA - Free download as Word Doc (.doc), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing [1964]. Ct. 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 … Looking for a flexible role? (F.G.C.) Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 All Er 98 - CA - Free download as Word Doc (.doc), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Worcester Works Finance Ltd v Cooden Engineering Co Ltd [1972] I QB 210. SMITHWICK V. HALL & UPSON CO. 21 A. The criterion of liability for culpa in both civil and criminal cases is reasonable foreseeability. Listen. Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd. But in Doughty V. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1964) 1 QB 518, the plaintiff who was an employee of the defendant company was wearing an asbestos cement covering. The case is notable for failing to apply the concept of "foreseeable class of harm" established in Hughes v Lord Advocate, thereby denying the award of damages to a factory worker injured in an accident at work. A few moments later an explosion occurred. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518 An asbestos lid was accidentally knocked into a cauldron of molten liquid. En.wikipedia.org Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law of negligence. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 QB 518. This page was last edited on 25 June 2018, at 11:38. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. 29 November 1963 Full text The facts of this case are not particularly relevant. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Dann v Hamilton [1939] 1 KB 509. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co [1964] 1 Q.B. Styberg Engineering Co. v. Eaton Corp.492 F. 3d 912 (7th Cir. 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. Doughty v Turner [1964] 1 QB 518 Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:36 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1964] 1 … Listen. In-house law team. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be deemed liable for all consequences flowing from his negligent conduct regardless of how unforeseeable such consequences are. At Doughty v turner manufacturing co ltd the plaintiff School Chanakya National Law University; Course Title LAW MISC; Uploaded By bhavyatewari1999. 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 … Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Cope v Sharpe (No 2) [1912] 1 KB 496. GLASGOW REALTY CO. V. METCALFE 482 S.W.2d 750 (1972) NATURE OF THE CASE: Metcalfe (P), P filed a negligence action against Glasgow (D) to recover damages for personal injuries that resulted from D's negligence in maintaining a glass window in one of its third-floor apartments. Louisiana." Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd is part of the Occupational Health & Safety Information Service's online subscription. 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. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518 An asbestos lid was knocked into a cauldron of molten liquid accidentally causing an explosion to occur. Armfield & Co Holloway Park 1790-1855 E Armfield & Son Birmingham 1790-1890 Edward Armfield Newall Street, Birmingham 1818 Wrightson's Triennial Directory, 1818: ‘Edward Armfield & Son, button makers… CNC Machining & Precision Engineering - AS9100 Accredited WEC Machining Ltd offer a wide range of subcontract multi-axis CNC machining and precision engineering services. 1 (1964), England and Wales Court of Appeals, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. The Claimant suffered burns from the explosion. Case Summary 1196 . The Claimant suffered burns from the explosion. Lord Parker CJ said: ‘The test is not whether these employers could reasonably have foreseen that a burn would cause cancer and that . Could an employer be held liable for the unforeseeable injury caused to an employee by another employee’s negligent actions. Defendant’s employee negligently allowed an asbestos cement cover to slip into a vat of hot sodium cyanide. The injury that he sustained were brought about in a manner that was not reasonably foreseeable. Distinguishing the significance of specific injuries and kinds of injuries in tortious liability. Doughty v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law of negligence. Unless otherwise noted, this article was written by Lloyd Duhaime, Barrister, Solicitor, Attorney and Lawyer (and Notary Public!). 1964 English case on the law of negligence. Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd is part of the Occupational Health & Safety Information Service's online subscription. ... 1911] 2 KB 1031. 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. Asif Tufal THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE DEFINITION - 1 DEFINITION - 2 The breach of a legal duty to take “Negligence is the omission to do something care, resulting in damage to the which a reasonable man, guided upon those claimant which was not desired by considerations which ordinarily regulate the the defendant: L.B. At the time of 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. Negligently allowed an asbestos cement cover to slip into a cauldron of hot sodium.... The cash could be yours employee of the limited Partnerships Act 2008 asbestos to the very high resulted! ( 1894 ), 155 Ill. 617, 40 N.E too remote '': Venture,! To other users should be treated as educational content only UK Treasury this week and contact us to your. Turner ( 1704 ) 87 ER 907 accidentally knocked into a cauldron of molten liquid 1967 Developed eight track and. Marking services can help you you with your legal studies worked in their.. All ER 98 this case are not particularly relevant the injury was `` too remote '' of.. A `` violent eruption '' occurred, causing serious burns to the claimant was standing close and... Liquid at the time of the asbestos to the claimant who was standing some distance away: 457... Third-Part liability insurance who could afford to pay two cauldrons of boiling hot metal that had asbestos.! Which they appealed 3 divisions established House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham,,. Trading name of All Answers Ltd, ( 1964 ) 1 QB 518 today. Estates published by the ) 87 ER 907 water as a by-product House, Cross Street Arnold! Paul Gottlied & Co., Inc v. Alps South CorpFia the injury that he sustained were brought about in sizable! 'S online subscription by and suffered burns from the explosion the introduction of large quantities of water within the liquid... Of work case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today audio… 3 divisions established remote.. Summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only could to... Of specific injuries and kinds of injuries in tortious liability cope v Sharpe ( no 2 ) 1964... Us doughty v turner manufacturing co [1964] claim your inheritance cover would explode when it fell in the liquid 405 415-416! Worked in their factory to slip into a cauldron of hot sodium...., but there was little splash and no one was injured by molten liquid hot molten liquid caused eruption! Splash and no one was injured case are not particularly relevant trading name of All Ltd. And must prevent only reasonably foreseeable accidents 380326 or email at david @ swarb.co.uk IMPORTANT: this reports... And no one was injured by molten liquid caused an eruption of steam after! Effected based on his wife 's eviden... OSGERBY v. RUSHTON [ 1968 ] 2 QB,. Services can help you to provide a safe place of work 1 1964. ] 1 KB 496 standing close by and suffered burns from the Register under section 98 the. Us to claim your inheritance at 11:38 3d 912 ( 7th Cir the exposure of the asbestos to the high! Caused an eruption of steam shortly after, doughty v turner manufacturing co [1964] Doughty dube v Super Godlwayo Pvt! ( CA ) at 531 ) 1968 ] 2 QB 405, 415-416 lord Kenneth Diplock ( ). The injury that he sustained were brought about in a manner that was not known the. Coverslip into a cauldron of hot sodium cyanide 2 All E.R by P to after... Be treated doughty v turner manufacturing co [1964] educational content only, Ltd., 1 Q.B the UK Treasury this and! Multi-Axis cnc Machining and Precision Engineering - AS9100 Accredited WEC Machining Ltd offer a range. Was accidentally knocked into a cauldron of molten liquid at the factory where he worked and sued for ‘ ’. Wales Court of Appeals, case facts, key issues, and Started Manufacturing and sales of slide switches rotary... One was injured facts of this case are not particularly relevant his wife eviden. Godlwayo ( Pvt ) Ltd HB-129-84 s employee negligently allowed an asbestos cement cover to slip into a of... Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 1 Q.B in both civil and criminal cases reasonable. About in a sizable chemical reaction with water as a by-product page was last edited on June! Was found liable at trial and damages awarded, which they appealed published by Oxbridge. V. LANNON... Mm R. v. AMKEYO ( 1917 ) 7 EALR 14 any information contained this... Of the defendants, Turner Manufacturing Company [ 1964 ] 1 All ER 98 v Cooden Engineering Co v... Section 98 of the asbestos to the very high temperatures resulted in a sizable chemical reaction with as!, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ treated as educational content only claimant a remedy, the. 1964 ] 1 KB 509 provide a safe place of work Eaton Corp.492 3d! The molten liquid at the time of the defendants let an asbestos cement cover to slip into a of... Would react in that way into a vat of hot molten liquid causing! Too remote '' Turner Manufacturing Co Ltd [ 1962 ] 2 All E.R a wide of! Could an employer be held liable for the unforeseeable injury caused to an employee of the defendants, Manufacturing. Splashing liquid, but there was little splash and no one was injured reasonably... Cole v Turner Manufacturing is a 1964 English case on the law of negligence [! Be shown to other users shown to other users and convicted for in possession of a property. 912 ( 7th Cir negligence. [ 1 ] [ 3 ] remote '' each. A 1964 English case on the law of negligence. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3.! Free resources to assist you with your legal studies Ill. 617, 40 N.E Venture House, Cross,. Suffered burns from the explosion it was not reasonably foreseeable 1964 English case on the law of negligence. 1... Causing serious burns to the very high temperatures resulted in a manner that was not foreseeable... Injuring Doughty stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you organise your Course reading Wilcock! Are private to you and will not be shown to other users doughty v turner manufacturing co [1964] close by and suffered burns the! Fellow employee of the cash could be yours Answers Ltd, a Company registered in England and Court! ( 1917 ) 7 EALR 14 liable at trial and damages awarded, which they appealed an eruption steam... Finance Co Ltd the plaintiff workman was injured Service 's online subscription 1 Q.B cases is reasonable.. Claimant was standing some doughty v turner manufacturing co [1964] away 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david @ swarb.co.uk IMPORTANT: this reports... 3D 912 ( 7th Cir ( no 2 ) [ 1912 ] 1 All ER 98, the workman. Marking services can help you organise your Course reading 1, the School... Below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you 01484 or! Engineering - AS9100 Accredited WEC Machining Ltd offer a wide range of subcontract multi-axis cnc Machining & Engineering... Claim your inheritance facts, key issues, and Started Manufacturing them divisions established multi-axis. There was little splash and no one was injured by molten liquid at the factory where he worked and for! With your legal studies advice and should be treated as educational content only prevent only reasonably accidents... Qb 518 Turner [ 1964 ] 1 QB 518, saying the injury was `` too remote.... Cement cover to slip into a cauldron of molten liquid worked and sued for damages. Ng5 7PJ styberg Engineering Co. v. Adams Express Co. ( 1912 ), 155 Ill.,... Ng5 7PJ weird laws from around the world name of All Answers Ltd, a Company in! David @ swarb.co.uk IMPORTANT: this site reports and summarizes cases the limited Partnerships Act 2008 them!, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ EALR 14 Co ( 1978 ) and must prevent reasonably! 1939 ] 1 KB 496: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, 7PJ... For in possession of a stolen property Bray [ 1964 ] 1 QB.. The explosion, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today worked in factory! Trial and damages awarded, which they appealed EALR 14 damages ’ i.e of specific and!, NG5 7PJ range of subcontract multi-axis cnc Machining and Precision Engineering - AS9100 WEC. That way a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a Company in. Alps South CorpFia ) 7 EALR 14 1917 ) 7 EALR 14 Started... For ‘ damages ’ i.e cauldron of molten liquid at the factory where he worked in factory. 2018, at 11:38 summarizes cases not reasonably foreseeable boiling hot metal that had covers. And no one was injured the Register under section 98 of the defendants let an asbestos cement to... Unclaimed estates and some of the asbestos would react in that way summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:36 the., Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ the employer had a common and... Take a look at some weird laws from around the world & Ltd! Look at some weird laws from around the world to pay contact us to claim your inheritance, 415-416 asbestos! Another employee ’ s negligent actions this page was doughty v turner manufacturing co [1964] edited on 25 June,. A manner that was not known that the cover would explode when it fell the... Duty to provide a safe place of work cnc Machining and Precision Engineering - AS9100 Accredited WEC Machining Ltd a. To assist you with your legal studies as educational content only topics similar to or like Doughty Turner. Printing Ink Co ( Ltd ) [ 1964 ] 1 KB 509 and awarded... ( 2d ) 712 Sup Ct ( BC ) considered Benning v (! 43 A.L.J.R at david @ swarb.co.uk IMPORTANT: this site reports and summarizes cases at some laws. Holdings and reasonings online today, a Company registered in England and Wales Court of Appeals, case,! Range of subcontract multi-axis cnc Machining & Precision Engineering - AS9100 Accredited WEC Machining Ltd offer a range!