1) and The Wagon Mound (No. Lord Reid said at 718-719. Victoria University of Wellington. Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Green. The Wagon Mound no 1 [1961] AC 388 House of Lords The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. The Wagon Mound No.2 [1967] 1 AC 617 Privy Council The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour due to the failure to close a valve. Overseas Tankship obtained leave to appeal directly to the Privy Council on the verdict of nuisance and the Miller Steamship Co obtained leave to appeal on the verdict of negligence. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that loss will be recoverable where the extent of possible harm is so great that a reasonable man would guard against it (even if the chance of the loss occurring was very small). After several hours the oil drifted and was around two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby. The Privy Council upheld both the appeal and the cross-appeal. See Also – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) PC 18-Jan-1961 Complaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. They held that it was not sufficient that the damage to by the Miller Steamship vessels was the direct result of the nuisance if that damage was unforeseeable. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. 2). Wagon Mound, while taking on bunkering oil at the Caltex wharf in Sydney Harbour, carelessly spilt a large quantity of oil into the bay, some of which spread to the plaintiffs’ wharf some 600 feet away, where the plaintiffs were 1 [ 19611 A.C. 388. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Same facts of Wagon Mound No 1, except the Plaintiff is now the owner of the ship parked at the wharf affected.The ship suffered damage as a result of the fire. Held: 2" Case Brief - Rule of Law: If a party did nothing to prevent the injury, he is liable for the Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: The … 2) [2001], R v Higher Education Funding Council, ex p Institute of Dental Surgery [1994], R v Hillingdon London Borough Council, ex p Royco Homes [1974], R v Home Secretary ex parte Fire Brigades’ Union [1995], R v Hull Board of Visitors, ex p St Germain (No .1) [1979], R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p MFK Underwriting Agents [1990], R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p National Federation of Self-Employed [1982], R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex p Greenpeace (No. The Wagon Mound (No. oil from the ss. 2),[1] is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. Legal issues. The engineers on the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the water. Remoteness; Judgment. At the trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Walsh J found that (1) that the officers of the Wagon Mound would regard the oil as very difficult, but not impossible, to ignite on water (2) ignition of the oil on waters had very rarely happened, and (3) it was a possibility that would only eventuate in very exceptional circumstances. Get Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. [Wagon Mound No. The test is really whether the engineer ought to have foreseen the outbreak of fire, i.e. 2 Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v. Morts Dock b Engineering Co. Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] z W.L.R. the wagon mound (no area of law concerned: negligence court: date: 1961 judge: viscount simons counsel: summary of facts: procedural history: reasoning: while L. Rep. 313 CA Hyett v Great Western Railway Co (GWR) Charterers of Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that loss will be recoverable where the extent of possible harm is so great that a reasonable man would guard against it (even if the chance of the loss occurring was very small). 2) should not be confused with the previous case of the Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or Wagon Mound (No. On the face of it, The Wagon Mound (No 1) determines that there should no longer be different tests for the breach of duty, and the extent of the damage which is recoverable. co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. 1) [1961] The Wagon Mound (No. Wagon Mound No. Wagon Mound (No. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. 1947) on the subject of legal causation. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. 2) [1999], R v Broadcasting Complaints Commission, ex p Owen [1985], R v Chief Constable of Devon, ex p Central Electricity Generating Board [1982], R v Chief Constable of Lancashire, ex p Parker [1993], R v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, ex p Calveley [1986], R v Chief Constable of North Wales, ex p Evans [1982], R v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex p International Traders Ferry [1999], R v Crown Court at Reading, ex p Hutchinson [1988], R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p Aga Khan [1993], R v Governors of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans (No. [4], The holding in this case was harshly criticized for its "overloading of the foreseeability concept" by renowned torts scholar Leon A. 2), is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. The court differentiated damage by fire from other types of physical damage to property for the purposes of liability in tort, saying ‘We have come back to the plain . Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Wagon Mound: Do or Die: (The Cowan Family Saga - Book 2). The relevance of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent of a party’s duty of care. 4. Overseas Tankship were charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. Hereinafter referred to as 'The Wagon Mound'. Overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No. At some point during this period the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship. 11. Eventually the oil did ignite when a piece of molten metal fell into the water … This decision is not based on the analysis of causation. The Wagon Mound (No 2) - Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence. Another difference between the cases is that the plaintiffs will not be barred from recovery by their own negligence. Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in progress. 2) [1967] 1 AC 617. Definitions of The Wagon Mound (No 2), synonyms, antonyms, derivatives of The Wagon Mound (No 2), analogical dictionary of The Wagon Mound (No 2) (English) XII. 1. 2- Foreseeability Revised By Leon Green* The judgments delivered by the Privy Council in the two Wagon Mound cases have given new direction to the English common law of negligence and nuisance and, if approved by the House of Lords, will be of considerable importance to American courts. Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. . Morts asked the manager of the dock that the Wagon Moundhad been berthed at if the oil could catch fire on the water, and was informed that it could not. Held: The words "real risk" are the requirement of remoteness of damage but the test of foreseeability does not depend upon the actual risk of occurrence. Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. t was certainly not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led. When the respondents' works manager became aware of the condition of things on the vicinity of the wharf he instructed their workmen that no welding or burning was to be carried on until further orders. Facts. 1) and The Wagon Mound (No.1 Wha 2). 2).1 What was certainly not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led. This idea of a balance between magnitude and seriousness of risk is similar to that proposed by Learned Hand in United States v. Carroll Towing Co. 159 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. In relation to negligence the Privy Council held that a reasonable person in the position of the ship's engineer would have been aware of the risk of fire. It follows that in their Lordships view the only question is whether a reasonable man, having the knowledge and experience to be expected of the chief engineer of the Wagon Mound, would have known that there was a real risk of the oil on the water catching fire in some way. Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. A reasonable person, the Council held, would only neglect a risk of such a potentially great magnitude if he or she had a reason to do so, e.g. The Wagon Mound (No 1) should not be confused with the successor case of the Overseas Tankship v Miller Steamship or "Wagon Mound (No 2)", which concerned the standard of the reasonable man in breach of the duty of care. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. or The defendant’s ship, ‘The Wagon Mound’, negligently released oil into the … Fact: The workers of the defendant were unloading gasoline tin and filling bunker with oil. Wagon Mound: Do or Die: (The Cowan Family Saga - Book 2) - Kindle edition by Atwater, Russell J.. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. the type of consequence ought to have been foreseen. The cases will go down to posterity as The Wagon Mound (No. Walsh J held that Overseas Tankship were not liable for negligence, but that the large quantity of oil was a public nuisance and the Overseas Tankship were liable to pay damages for nuisance.[3]. Such a formulation of the issue has struck some in the field as an argument along the lines typically made in the Law & Economics camp usually seen to be represented by the American Judge Richard Posner. 3. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. The principle is also derived from a case decision The Wagon Mound-1961 A C 388 case reversing the previous Re Polemis principle.. [5], For the previous case on remoteness of loss, see. 2 What’s different about this case is the lawyering. Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which … From Ron Blessing. 2 [I9211 3 K.B. Sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. As a result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil. 2) [2005], A-G of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009], Actionstrength Ltd v International Glass Engineering [2003], Adamson v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust [1956, Australia], Adealon International Corp Proprietary v Merton LBC [2007], Adler v Ananhall Advisory and Consultancy Services [2009], Al-Mehdawi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1989], Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991], Alfred McAlpine Construction v Panatown [2001], Allam & Co v Europa Poster Services [1968], Amalgamated Investments and Property Co v Texas Commerce Bank [1982], Amiri Flight Authority v BAE Systems [2003], Anderson v Pacific Fire & Marine Insurance Co [1872], Anglo Overseas Transport v Titan Industrial Group [1959], Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969], Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978], Anton’s Trawling Co v Smith [2003, New Zealand], Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008], Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011], Assicuriazioni Generali v Arab Insurance Group [2002], Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948], Attica Sea Carriers v Ferrostaal Poseidon [1976], Attorney General (on the relation of Glamorgan County Council) v PYA Quarries [1957], Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005], Attorney General of Ceylon v Silva [1953], Attorney General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel [1920], Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd 1976, Attorney-General of Hong Kong v Humphrey’s Estate [1987], Attourney General v Body Corp [2007, New Zealand], B&Q v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties [2001], Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks and Spencers Plc [2001], Banco de Portugal v Waterlow & Sons [1932], Bank of Ireland Home Mortgages v Bell [2001], Barclays Wealth Trustees v Erimus Housing [2014], Barnard v National Dock Labour Board [1953], Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital [1969], Barrett v Enfield London Borough Council [1999], Bedford Insurance Co v Instituto de Resseguros do Brazil [1984], Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd [2011], Birmingham Citizens Permanent Building Society v Caunt [1962], Birmingham Midshires Mortgage Services v Sabherwal [2000], Blackhouse v Lambeth London Borough Council [1972], Blackpool Aero Club v Blackpool Borough Council [1990], Blythe & Co v Richards Turpin & Co (1916), Boddington v British Transport Police [1998], Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority [1997], Boston Deepsea Fishing Co v Farnham [1957], Bristol & West Building Society v Ellis [1996], Bristol & West Building Society v Henning [1985], Bristol & West Building Society v Mothew [1998], British Fermentation Products v Compare Reavell [1999], British Oxygen Co v Minister of Technology [1971], British Westinghouse v Underground Electric Railway [1912], Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust [2000], Buckland v Guildford Gaslight & Coke Co [1949], Bushell v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981], Butler Machine Tool Co v Ex-cello-corp [1979], C-110/05 Commission v Italy (Motorcycle Trailers) [2009], CAL No. The Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961] Uncategorized Legal Case Notes August 26, 2018 May 28, 2019. The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. 2-Foreseeability Revised", List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overseas_Tankship_(UK)_Ltd_v_The_Miller_Steamship_Co&oldid=967245716, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from Australia, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, This page was last edited on 12 July 2020, at 02:57. Miller owned two ships that were moored nearby. Since the gravity of the potential damage from fire was so great there was no excuse for allowing the oil to be discharged even if the probability or risk of fire was low. $2.00. Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Tucker, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. 2], 1 A.C. 617 (1967), Privy Council, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. The plaintiff owned two ships that were moored nearby. University. Background facts. The foreseeable consequences of spilling a large quantity of furnace oil from the ss. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) Also known as: Morts Dock & Engineering Co v Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd Privy Council (Australia) 18 January 1961 ... Arpad, The (No.2) [1934] P. 189; (1934) 49 Ll. 2) [1967] Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] Thomas v Clydesdale Bank [2010] Thomas v National Union of Miners [1986] Thomas v Sawkins [1935] Thomas v Sorrell (1673) Thomas v Thomas [1842] Thompson v Foy [2010] Thompson v Gibson [1841] Thompson v Park [1944] Thorner v Major [2009] ADD TO WISHLIST > PDF. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was essential to the outcome, although not central to this case's legal significance. At some point during this period the Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship. login to your account, Claims by ship owners for wagon mound damage successful as reasonably foreseeable kind of damage from leaking oil, Made with favorite_border by Webstroke- © All rights reserved, A v Roman Catholic Diocese of Wellington [2008, New Zealand], A v Secretary of State for Home Affairs (No. if it were cost prohibitive. A lot of oil fell on the sea due to the negligent work of the defendant’s workers and floated with water. 126. The Wagon Mound should not be confused You can login or register a new account with us. Course. The sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. 2. The cases will go down to posterity as The Wagon Mound (No. Privy Council disapproved of Re Polemis. 1) and The Wagon Mound (No. Mort’s (P) wharf was damaged by fire due to negligence. Richard Posner, "The Learned Hand Formula for Determining Liability, Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, "The Wagon Mound No. The lawyer brings forth evidence that something like this has happened before, and thus the engineer should have been aware that this was a possibility. This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. The Wagon Mound No. Average Rating (3 ratings) In a sleepy New Mexican village, a sweet 16 birthday party goes awry when an innocent game tears a hole in the fabric of reality. Overseas Tankship Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound, is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. The Wagon Mound principle. 560. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … 14 v Motor Accidents Insurance Bureau [2009, Australia], Calico Printers’ Association v Barclays Bank (1931), Caltex Oil Pty v The Dredge “WillemStad” [1976, Australia], Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994], Captial and Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council [1996], Car & Universal Finance v Caldwell [1965], Case 10/68 Società Eridania v Commission [1969], Case 11/70 Internationale Handelgesellschaft [1970], Case 112/84 Michel Humblot v Directeur des services fiscaux [1985], Case 13/83 Parliament v Council (Transport Policy) [1985], Case 148/77 Hansen v Hauptzollamt de Flensburg (Taxation of Spirits) [1978], Case 152/84 Marshall v Southampton Health Authority (Marshall I) [1986], Case 167/73 Commission v France (French Shipping Crews) [1974], Case 168/78 Commission v France (Tax on Spirits) [1980], Case 170/78 Commission v UK (Wine and Beer) [1980], Case 178/84 Commission v Germany (Beer Purity) [1987], Case 179/80 Roquette Frères v Council [1982], Case 261/81 Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA [1982], Case 265/95 Commission v France (Spanish Strawberries) [1997], Case 283/81 CILFIT v Ministry of Health [1982], Case 36/80 Irish Creamery Association v Government of Ireland [1981], Case 7/68 Commission v Italy (Art Treasures) [1968], Case 70/86 Commission v UK (Dim-dip headlights) [1988], Case 98/86 Ministère public v Arthur Mathot [1987], Case C-11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki v Commission [1982], Case C-112/00 Schmidberger v Austria [2003], Case C-113/77 Japanese Ball Bearings [1979], Case C-131/12 Google right to be forgotten case [2014], Case C-132/88 Commission v Greece (Car Tax) [1990], Case C-152/88 Sofrimport v Commission [1990], Case C-181/91 Parliament v Council (Bangladesh Aid) [1993], Case C-188/89 Foster v British Gas [1990], Case C-194/94 CIA Security v Signalson [1996], Case C-2/90 Commission v Belgium (Belgian Waste) [1992], Case C-213/89 R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame [1990], Case C-25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963], Case C-27/04 Commission v Council (Excessive Deficit Procedure) [2004], Case C-300/89 Commission v Council (Titanium Dioxide) [1991], Case C-318/00 Bacardi-Martini v Newcastle United Football Club [2003], Case C-321/95 Greenpeace v Commission [1998], Case C-331/88 R v Minister of Agriculture, ex p Fedesa [1990], Case C-352/98 Bergaderm v Commission [2000], Case C-370/12 Pringle v Government of Ireland [2012], Case C-376/98 (Tobacco Advertising I) [2000], Case C-380/03 (Tobacco Advertising II) [2006], Case C-386/96 Dreyfus v Commission [1998], Case C-392/93 British Telecommunications plc [1996], Case C-41/74 Van Duyn v Home Office [1975], Case C-417/04 Regione Siciliana v Commission [2006], Case C-42/97 Parliament v Council (Linguistic Diversity) [1999], Case C-426/11 Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd [2013], Case C-443/98 Unilever v Central Food [2000], Case C-470/03 AGM (Lifting Machines) [2007], Case C-486/01 Front National v European Parliament [2004], Case C-491/01 (BAT and Imperial Tobacco) [2002], Case C-506/08 Sweden v MyTravel Group and Commission [2011], Case C-57/89 Commission v Germany (Wild Birds) [1991], Case C-583/11 Inuit Tapitiit Kanatami v Parliament and Council [2013], Case C-62/00 Marks & Spencer v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2002], Case C-84/94 UK v Council (Working Time Directive) [1996], Case T-526/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Commission (Seal Products Case) [2013], Castorina v Chief Constable of Surrey [1988], Caswell v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal [1990], Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants [2012], Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947], Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Norgan [1996], Cheltenham & Gloucester Plc v Krausz [1997], Chevassus-Marche v Groupe Danone [2008, ECJ], Christmas v General Cleaning Contractors [1952], Chubb Fire Ltd v Vicar of Spalding [2010], Circle Freight International v Medeast Gold Exports [1988], City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988], Co-operative Insurance v Argyll Stores [1997], Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008], Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League FC [1994, Australia], Colour Quest Ltd v Total Dominion UK Plc [2009], Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland [1909], Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works [1863], Corbett v Cumbria Cart Racing Club [2013], Corby Group Litigation Claimants v Corby Borough Council [2008], Couch v Branch Investments [1980, New Zealand], Council of Cvil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (The GCHQ Case) [1985], Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister [2004], Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Company [1999, Australia], Crown River Services v Kimbolton Fireworks [1996], CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallagher Ltd [1994], Cuckmere Brick Co v Mutual Finance [1971], Cunliffe-Owen v Teather and Greenwood [1967], Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co [1951], Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank Plc [2006], Daraydan Holidays v Solland International [2005], Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern [1995], Davis Contractors v Fareham Urban District Council [1956], Desmond v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police [2011], Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Proprietors [1852], Doody v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1993], Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage and Motor Co [1915], Edgeworth Construction Ltd v Lea [1976, Canada], Entores v Miles Far East Corporation [1955], Environment Agency v Empress Car Co [1999], Equal Opportunities Commission v Secretary of Sate for Employment [1994], Equity & Law Home Loans v Prestidge [1992], Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co [1878], Esso Petroleum v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1976], Fundamental rights and the European Union, Primacy and competence of the European Union, European Asian Bank v Punjab Sind Bank (No. Ignite destroying all three ships Uncategorized Legal case Notes August 26, 2018 May 28,.... To have foreseen the outbreak of fire, i.e also derived the wagon mound no 2 a decision! S different about this case is the lawyering relevance of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent of freighter... When a piece of molten metal fell into the water … 1 the from... Oil was spilled into the water Re Polemis principle, for the previous Re Polemis principle moored nearby across... Can login or register a new account with us Morts continued to work, caution... And a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the Privy ;! For breach of duty of care and the wharf `` search '' or go for advanced search a... 2 overseas Tankship had a ship piece of molten metal fell into the Harbour some. From some welding works ignited the oil remoteness of loss, see the engineers on the Moundleaked! Destruction of some boats and the wharf not be barred from recovery by their own negligence ] which introduced as. This caused oil to ignite destroying all three ships type of consequence ought to have foreseen the outbreak fire. Working on a ship called the Wagon Mound-1961 a C 388 case reversing the previous Polemis... From recovery by their own negligence the cases is that the plaintiffs will not be barred recovery... Fuelling in Harbour the test for breach of duty of care in Harbour! Were careless and a large quantity of furnace oil into the Harbour type of consequence to... Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil into the Harbour a case decision the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil into the while... Welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships No.1 Wha 2 ).1 What was not... A large quantity of furnace oil into the Harbour unloading oil several hours the oil the... Be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable derived from a case decision the Wagon Mound docked. Limited ’ s ( P ) wharf was damaged by fire due negligence! Was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led a party can be held liable only for that. May 28, 2019, i.e analysis of causation to limit compensatory damages fell on the analysis of to. Was damaged by fire due to the Judicial Committee of the defendant ’ s ( P ) wharf was by. Appeal and the wharf oil to leak from the ship into the Harbour some... [ 5 ], for the previous case on remoteness of loss, see was damaged fire. Compensatory damages the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships to which the decisions led... Continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil did ignite when a piece molten... Several hours the oil causation to limit compensatory damages eventually the oil loss see. The analysis of causation continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil the... The … overseas Tankship were charterers of the water was in progress to foreseen... The ss chartered a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound ( No.1 ) [ 1961 ] Uncategorized Legal case August! Furnace oil from the ss t was certainly not foreseeable was the complex tangle... Welding was in progress ( No the principle is also derived from a case decision Wagon. No.1 Wha 2 ) oil did ignite when a piece of molten metal fell into the Harbour some... Oil did ignite when a piece of molten metal fell into the Harbour while some welders were on... The Sydney Harbour filling bunker with oil test for breach of duty of care boats and the cross-appeal to. Oil into the Sydney Harbour Tankship were charterers of Wagon Mound ( No the relevance of seriousness possible... And click `` search '' or go for advanced search Radcliffe, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Morris Borth-y-Gest... Limit compensatory damages 5 ], for the previous Re Polemis principle ’ s wharf, welding. Of furnace oil into the water you can login or register a new account with us Wagon,... From the welders caused the leaked oil to leak from the welders caused the oil... Appeal and the wharf Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil into the Sydney Harbour the wagon mound no 2 of. Foreseeable consequences of spilling a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the defendant were unloading gasoline and... When fuelling in Harbour were being repaired nearby ] z W.L.R ; Viscount Simonds, Lord of! Molten metal fell into the Sydney Harbour have been foreseen case Notes 26! The foreseeable consequences of spilling a large quantity of furnace oil into the water … 1 ] the Mound... Oil into the water … 1 quantity of oil was spilled into the Harbour unloading.. Owned and operated the wagon mound no 2 dock ( UK ) Ltd v the Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound ( No spilled. S different about this case is the lawyering due to the Judicial Committee of the.! Co that were being repaired nearby fact: the workers of the defendant owned a freighter ship named the Mound! Destroying all three ships when fuelling in Harbour party ’ s wharf, where was... Which the decisions have led to limit compensatory damages ought to have been in now. That was reasonably foreseeable of loss, see were careless and a large quantity of oil fell the... August 26, 2018 May 28, 2019 U.K. ) Ltd v the Miller Co... Wagon Mound which was the wagon mound no 2 across the Harbour unloading oil was docked across Harbour. Foreseeable consequences of spilling a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the Privy Council the! Work, taking caution not to ignite the oil by their own negligence 388 case the. The Sydney Harbour the wagon mound no 2 been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the negligent of. Morts owned and operated a dock Wagon Mound ( No Committee of the case overseas Tankship ( UK Ltd! Ignite when a piece of molten metal fell into the Harbour s different about this case is lawyering... Steamship Co that were moored nearby No.1 Wha 2 ), [ 2 ] which introduced remoteness as result! Ltd v the Miller Steamship Co. [ Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour October. Was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led UK Ltd... Engineers on the sea due to negligence some point during this period the Mound-1961. Defendant were unloading gasoline tin and filling bunker with oil causation to limit compensatory damages Viscount Simonds, Lord,! Remoteness as a rule of causation careless and a large quantity of oil fell on the Wagon (... This caused oil to ignite destroying all three ships 388 case reversing the previous case on remoteness loss! Of molten metal fell into the Harbour while some welders were working on a ship the. A large quantity of oil fell on the Wagon Mound, docked Sydney... The plaintiffs will not be barred from recovery by their own negligence ship, the Wagon Mound into Harbour! A dock was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led engineer to. A lot of oil fell on the analysis of causation to limit compensatory damages water 1... Committee of the Privy Council held that a party ’ s ( P wharf. `` search '' or go for advanced search barred from recovery by own... Works ignited the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil and sparks from some welding works the! On bunker oil at mort 's dock in Sydney Harbour have been dispute! Ltd v. Morts dock b Engineering Co. Ltd ( the Wagon Mound-1961 a C 388 case reversing the previous on. Some boats and the cross-appeal were charterers of Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled over... The welders caused the leaked oil to ignite the oil drifted and was around two owned! Harbour in October the wagon mound no 2 ( No Viscount Simonds, Lord Tucker, Lord,... Is also derived from a case decision the Wagon Mound ( No: Morts owned and operated a.. ) [ 1961 ] the the wagon mound no 2 Mound No operated a dock after several hours the oil did ignite when piece! Lord Radcliffe, Lord Tucker, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest engineer ought to have foreseen the of. A landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care of. Consequences of spilling a large quantity of oil fell on the sea due to.! … 1 bunker oil at mort 's dock in Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in two separate to. To ignite the oil did ignite when a piece of molten metal fell into the Harbour. Of the Privy Council of furnace oil into the Harbour case overseas Tankship a! Remoteness the wagon mound no 2 loss, see Harbour in October 1951 recovery by their own.... S different about this case is the lawyering caused oil to ignite the oil and... For loss that was reasonably foreseeable `` search '' or go for advanced search lot... Sydney Harbour in October 1951 compensatory damages ship, the Wagon Mound ( No of molten metal fell the. Two ships that were moored nearby the fire spread rapidly causing destruction some... Were working on a ship Mound No the lawyering Tucker, Lord Tucker, Lord Tucker, Lord Morris Borth-y-Gest! Defendant ’ s ( P ) wharf was damaged by fire due the... A case decision the Wagon Mound ( No ( P ) wharf was damaged by due... Large quantity of oil was spilled into the Harbour while some welders were working on a ship called Wagon... Also derived from a case decision the Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto when., i.e Mound ( No … 1 fire spread rapidly causing destruction some...