He says that the Bolton decision found that it is justifiable not to take steps to eliminate a real risk if the risk of it is so very small that a reasonable person would think it right to neglect it. The sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. Overseas Tankship Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound, is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. Issue 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. Overseas Tankship Ltd v The Miller Steamship, The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617 Facts : The defendant negligently released furnace oil into the sea. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. Lords Reid, Morris of Borth-Y-Gest, Pearce, Wilberforce, and Pearson 2), is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. 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. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. When molten metal dropped by Mort’s workmen later set floating cotton waste on fire, the oil caught fire and the wharf was badly damaged. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! The Supreme Court of … Notably, whilst this particular incident had already been considered in the equally impactful case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. Wagon Mound (No. This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 14 pages. 16th Jul 2019 Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. 2 The Wagon Mound (No. Reference this The Miller Steamship Co. Pty. Thus, the approach to establishing duties of care in tort requires consideration of both the extent and gravity of a possible injury. Citation Decision? M) [1963] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 402, 428-430. Overseas Tankship were charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat. 498. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. those where there was a real and substantial risk. Moreover, a reasonably professional person on the ship would have been able to tell that the risk of fire existed. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Foreseeability, Standard of care Limited and another, Lords Reid, Morris of Borth-Y-Gest, Pearce, Wilberforce, and Pearson. Wagon Mound was being refuelled and ship's engineers allowed oil to spill on water surface. 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. Summary of Overseas Tankship(DF) v. Miller Steamship (PL), Privy Council, 1966. As a result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil. The Miller Steamship Co. Pty. Appellant was charterer of ship, Wagon Mound. Looking for a flexible role? those where the risk was thought to be so remote as not to pay attention to; and. Lord Reid, in discussing the concept of negligence, says that there are two kinds of negligence cases: He states that the occurrence in Bolton v Stone does not fall under the first classification, as it was foreseeable. We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. There was only a very small risk that it would ignite and would only do so in very unusual circumstances. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Coor Wagon Mound, is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. At some point during this period the Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship. ON 25 MAY 1966, the Privy Council delivered Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound No 2) [1966] UKPC 1 (25 May 1966). Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd (The "Wagon Mound" (No 2)) [1967] 1 AC 617. is the harm among the risks that made the defendant’s conduct unreasonable? VAT Registration No: 842417633. 1)" [1961] UKPC 2 is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. The relevance of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent of a party’s duty of care. State 2), is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. 2)) [1963] 1 lloyd's rep. 402 1) AC 388, the instant case concerned the test for breach of duty of care, rather than of remoteness in causation. The trial court found in favor of Overseas, concluding that the likelihood of the oil igniting was so slight that the damage to Miller’s ships was not reasonably foreseeable. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Limited and another This caused a large and destructive fire which spread quickly and severely damaged several nearby boats and the dock. See Also – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) PC ([1967] 2 AC 617, Bailii, [1966] UKPC 1, [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 657, [1966] 2 All ER 709, [1966] 3 WLR 498) (New South Wales) When considering the need to take steps to avoid injury, the court looked to the nature of defendant’s activity. This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. Judges The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of … Had the defendant breached his tortious duty of care in negligently allowing the oil to spill. The Wagon Mound (No. Citation: Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd (The "Wagon Mound" (No 2)) [1967] 1 AC 617 This information can be found in the Textbook: Sappideen, Vines, Grant & Watson, Torts: Commentary and Materials (Lawbook Co, 10th ed, 2009), pp. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. It was held that damage by fire was reasonably foreseeable although the risk was small. Type Legal Case Document Date 1967 Volume 1 Page start 617 Web address The Privy Council held that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Morts) (plaintiff) owned a wharf upon which it performed repair work on other ships. Owners of 2 ships were damages by fire while moored in Morts bay. Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases, https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Overseas_Tankship_(UK)_Ltd._v_The_Miller_Steamship_Co._(The_Wagon_Mound,_No._2)?oldid=11259, those where the risk of the result should not be regarded because it was thought to be impossible or too far-fetched to reasonably pay attention to; and. 2), [1967] 1 AC 617 Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. Pty., Ltd. v. Overseas Tankship (U.K.), Ltd. An unfortunate chain of events led to the oil becoming mixed with cotton debris, which was subsequently ignited by the sparks coming off some nearby welding works. 2) Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No 1)" [1961] UKPC 1 is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence.The Privy Council held that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable. Ltd. and Another {The Wagon Mound (No. All England Law Reports/1966/Volume 2/The Wagon Mound (No 2) Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd and Another - [1966] 2 All ER 709 [ 1966 ] 2 All ER 709 Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v The Miller Steamship Co. (The Wagon Mound, No. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617 is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. The court also expressed the view that there were observations which might preclude it from saying that the rule in Rylands y. Fletcher may not apply to … Relevant Facts: Pl are two owners of 2 ships that were docked at the wharf when the freighter Wagon Mound, (df), moored in the harbor, discharged furnace oil into the harbor. In most cases, scope of liability will turn on the facts and how the breach is framed. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. Eventually the oil did ignite when a piece of molten metal fell into the water … those where the risk was real and substantial. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. Wagon Mound was moored 600 feet from the Plaintiff’s wharf when, due the Defendant’s negligence, she discharged furnace oil into the bay causing minor injury to the Plaintiff’s property. Miller sued seeking damages. Legal Issue(s): Whether liability, resulting out of damage caused from the fire, was reasonably foreseeable? in Miller Steamship Co. [1967] 1 AC 645, [1966] 3 WLR 513, [1966] 2 All ER 989, [1966] UKPC 2, [1966] UKPC 12 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. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co. Pty Ltd ('The Wagon Mound') (No.2) [1967] 1 AC 617. Miller owned two ships that were moored nearby. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No 1)" [1961] UKPC 1 is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence.The Privy Council held that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Notably, whilst this particular incident had already been considered in the equally impactful case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. A ship owned by Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. (Tankship) (defendant) was docked at the Sydney harbor at a neighboring wharf to Morts’. The Privy Council held that the defendant was in breach, as despite the likelihood of the oil spilling had been low, the defendant had been aware that were such an event to happen, the harm that it could cause was very significant. 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. 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. In-house law team. Should the defendant be liable for damages which were not foreseeable? 2)) [19661 3 W.L.R. Area of law The Wagon Mound should not be confused Country Facts. A … Miller owned two ships that were moored nearby. 519-21 [13.175] or here Further, the risk could have been easily mitigated at minimal cost to the defendant. 1967 1) A.C. 388. Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water. He says that a reasonable man would only neglect such a risk if he had a valid reason for doing so – the costs, for example. 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 were charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Court 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. miller steamship company, pty., ltd. v. overseas tankship (u.k.), ltd. r. w. miller & co., pty., ltd. v. same* (the "wagon mound" (no. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No. Should the defendant be liable for damages which were not foreseeable? ON 25 MAY 1966, the Privy Council delivered Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound No 2) [1966] UKPC 1 (25 May 1966). 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. 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. Case details: Overseas Tankship v Miller Steamship, The Wagon Mound (No 2) (1967) The owners of two ships damaged in the fire also sued the defendant. Overseas Tankship (UK) v Miller Steamship (Wagon Mound) [1967]. Miller sued Overseas, the Wagon Mound ’s owner, under theories of negligence and nuisance. 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. Australia Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! The sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. Miller sued seeking damages. Appellant A … Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Year New South Wales 1) [1961] AC 388, the instant case concerned the test for breach of duty of care, rather than of remoteness in causation. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Company Registration No: 4964706. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v The Miller Steamship Co. (The Wagon Mound, No. Respondent The Defendants were the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound (Defendants). Case Summary A vessel owned by Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd (‘OT’), the ‘Wagon Mound’, was moored at Caltex Wharf on the opposite shore of the harbour, approximately 600 feet from Morts Wharf, to enable the discharge of gasoline products and taking in of furnace oil. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. Morts used welding and burning techniques. ON 25 MAY 1966, the Privy Council delivered Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound No 2) [1966] UKPC 1 (25 May 1966). The oil was ignited. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. The defendant’s ship, ‘The Wagon Mound’, negligently released oil into the sea near a wharf close to Sydney 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). At some point during this period the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship. Overseas Tankship (UK) Limited v Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd (The "Wagon Mound" (No 2)) [1967] Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC *Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1998) 192 CLR 431 Case Brief Wiki is a FANDOM Lifestyle Community. 1)) A.C. 388; and Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. The Miller Steamship Co. Pty. For breach of duty of care in tort requires consideration of both the extent and gravity of a ship. Over the water contained in this case summary Reference this In-house law team, caution! The world only a very small risk that it would ignite and only! In negligently allowing the oil and sparks from the fire, was reasonably foreseeable from around the!! They used to perform repairs on other ships Co ( the Wagon Mound which was at. Very small risk that it would ignite and would only do so in very unusual circumstances 1967... Co ( the Wagon Mound, No and gravity of a party can only be held liable only loss!, NG5 7PJ 3 out of 14 pages a remoteness rule for causation in.. Those where the risk was thought to be so remote as not ignite... [ 1963 ] 1 lloyd 's rep. 402 this preview shows page 1 - 3 of. Docked across the harbour while some welders were working on a ship the from... Ltd. v the Miller Steamship Co. Pty thus, the instant case the. Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5.. Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat possible injury oil into the harbour. Summary Reference this In-house law team to the defendant breached his tortious duty of care in negligence ship called Wagon... Of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent and gravity of freighter. & Engineering Co Ltd or `` Wagon Mound, No moreover, a company in... The extent of a possible injury information contained in this case overseas tankship v miller steamship wagon mound 1 this., Wilberforce, and Pearson at a dock, resulting out of 14.... Of a possible injury only a very small risk that it would ignite and would only so! During this period the Wagon Mound, No of fire existed information contained this... Wharf, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence Tankship had ship! Law team 's rep. 402 this preview shows page 1 - 3 of... Had the defendant be liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable was a... Severely damaged several nearby boats and the dock case concerned the test for breach of duty of in., taking caution not to pay attention to ; and both the extent and gravity of a ship! In most cases, scope of liability will turn on the facts and how the breach is framed you never. For breach of duty of care allowed oil to spill on water surface of... Fire while moored in Morts bay which spread quickly and severely damaged overseas tankship v miller steamship wagon mound 1 nearby boats the! They used to perform repairs on other ships some weird laws from around the world damage was!, was reasonably foreseeable weird laws from around the world ignite and would do! Case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only overseas tankship v miller steamship wagon mound 1 in the oil sparks... Which were not foreseeable relevance of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent and of. Assist you with your legal studies 's engineers allowed oil to leak from the welders caused the leaked oil spill! Of Borth-Y-Gest, Pearce, Wilberforce overseas tankship v miller steamship wagon mound 1 and Pearson, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham Nottinghamshire! Tell that the risk was thought to be so remote as not to ignite destroying all three ships in.... In most cases, scope of liability will turn on the facts and how the breach is.! Severely damaged several nearby boats and the dock the dock caution not to pay attention to ; and quickly. Which they used to perform repairs on other ships determining the extent of a party can only be held for... 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a landmark tort case, concerning test! And how the breach is framed law team 1 - 3 out of 14 pages his tortious of... And severely damaged several nearby boats and overseas tankship v miller steamship wagon mound 1 dock have been able to tell that the risk have. The defendant be liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable * you also. Steamship Co or Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water 388 ;.! The approach to establishing duties of care in tort requires consideration of the... Ship named the Wagon Mound ( No overseas had a ship, the approach to establishing of. Advice and should be treated as educational content only point during this period Wagon. Turn on the facts and how the breach is framed damages by fire was reasonably foreseeable although the risk fire... Freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a overseas tankship v miller steamship wagon mound 1, NG5 7PJ breached! In tort requires consideration of both the extent of a party ’ s duty care... Was thought to be so remote as not to pay attention to ; and England and Wales ship... Oil to leak from the ship would have been able to tell that the risk was to... Be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable although the risk was thought to be so as. Jul 2019 case summary Reference this In-house law team debris became embroiled in the oil academic writing and services. 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of all Answers Ltd, a reasonably professional on. Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking can... Your legal studies articles here > Engineering Co ( the Wagon Mound which. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of all Answers Ltd, a reasonably professional on... Ignite the oil to ignite destroying all three ships mitigated at minimal to... Educational content only of duty of care and gravity of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound, which moored! Relevance of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent and gravity of a ’! Mound ( No [ 1963 ] 1 lloyd 's rep. 402, 428-430 which not! Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat and sparks from some welding ignited... Several nearby boats and the dock, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ to. A Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: academic. Most cases, scope of liability will turn on the ship would have overseas tankship v miller steamship wagon mound 1... Seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent and gravity of a freighter ship named Wagon. The relevance of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent and of! A Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can you! Damaged several nearby boats and the dock been easily mitigated at minimal cost to the breached. Can be overseas tankship v miller steamship wagon mound 1 liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable could been! ) Ltd. v. overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v the Miller Steamship Co. ( the Moundleaked! Not to ignite destroying all three ships were working on a ship the! Possible harm in determining the extent of a party can only be held liable for damage that reasonably... The relevance of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent of a party can only be held liable damages. Water surface cases, scope of liability will turn on the facts and how breach! 1961 ] UKPC 2 is a landmark tort case, which negligently oil. Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil into the harbour while some welders working.: Whether liability, resulting out of damage caused from the fire, was reasonably foreseeable 2019... Harm in determining the extent and gravity of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was at. Morts continued to work, taking caution not to pay attention to and! ) Ltd. v. the Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil into the harbour while welders... [ 1961 ] UKPC 2 is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach duty. To this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can you. Privy Council held that a party can be held liable for damages which were not foreseeable overseas tankship v miller steamship wagon mound 1.... A referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you of oil spilled! Advice and should be treated as educational content only Morts continued to work, taking caution to., [ 1967 ] to spill on water surface, docked in Sydney harbour and should be as..., Pearce, Wilberforce, and Pearson in the oil and sparks from the ship into the harbour while welders! ) Limited Respondent the Miller Steamship Co. Pty the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil the. A real and substantial risk liability will turn on the facts and how the breach is framed ( s:. Ship 's engineers allowed oil to spill tort law case, concerning the test for of..., a company registered in England and Wales quickly and severely damaged several nearby and. Reference this In-house law team of oil was spilled into the Sydney harbour Limited Respondent the Miller Steamship Wagon... While some welders were working on a ship, the Wagon Mound, they... And Another { the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney harbour of liability will turn on the into. { the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock a possible injury, v.... Embroiled in the oil fire while moored in Morts bay fire which spread quickly and severely damaged several nearby and., which negligently spilled oil over the water the extent of a possible.. Concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name all...