Site navigation

The defendants, employees of the Municipal Corporation, opened a manhole in the street and in the…

The open manhole and lamp were a known source of danger to children, and harm of that kind was foreseeable even though it came about through an unforeseeable sequence…

Choose your answer

The defendants, employees of the Municipal Corporation, opened a manhole in the street and in the evening left the manhole open, covered by a canvas shelter, unattended and surrounded by warning lamps. The plaintiff, an eight year old boy, took one of the lamps into the shelter and was playing with it there, when he stumbled over it and it fell into the manhole. A violent explosion followed and the plaintiff sustained burn injuries. The defendants are:

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer D

The open manhole and lamp were a known source of danger to children, and harm of that kind was foreseeable even though it came about through an unforeseeable sequence (Hughes v Lord Advocate), so the defendants are "liable because injury resulted from a known source of danger even though through an unforeseeable sequence of events".

Practice for these exams

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic