Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd.. Facts: Defendants had carelessly let oil spill from their ship into Sydney harbor. In addition, would this also be the case even if it was unforeseeable, but a result of a negligent act. -Some of the oil spilled, concentrated at P’s wharf.-P stopped welding activities and assessed the danger. 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. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1): PC 18 Jan 1961 References: [1961] AC 388, [1961] UKPC 2, [1961] UKPC 2, 100 ALR2d 928, [1961] 2 WLR 126, [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep, 1961 AMC 962, [1961] 1 All ER 404 As a result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil. In this case, the damage caused to the wharf by the fire and the furnace oil being set alight could not be foreseen by a reasonable person. Country On 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. The issue in this case was whether the crew could be liable for the damage to the wharf that was caused by the fire. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v Morts Dock & Engineering (The Wagon Mound, No. 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 . As a result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil. (Wharf lit on fire by oil spilled from nearby ship.) The court finds that it was not reasonable that Overseas Tankship would expect their spilling of oil to result in the large fire that happened, and therefore they are not liable for the damages sustained by Morts. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. 23 of 1960. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Wagon Mound (No. The Defendants were the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound (Defendants). Morts Dock & Engineering Company Limited Eventually the oil did ignite when a piece of molten metal fell into the water and ignited a rag that in turn ignited the oil. 519-21 [13.175] or here 1), [1961] AC 388 We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Eventually the oil did ignite when a piece of molten metal fell into the water … The Privy Council held that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable. Reference this Appellant Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 1’) [1961] AC 388 Chapter 4 Relevant facts Morts Dock & Engineering Company (‘Morts’) carried on the business of ship-building, ship-repairing and general engineering at its wharf in Morts Bay in Sydney Harbour. 1 ]. The sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd is similar to these court cases: Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co, Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd, March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd and more. 1961 A.C. 388. This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, [1] commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or The 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. Judges 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. On Remoteness Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd – “The Wagon Mound” [1961] AC 388 In summary The Wagon Mound caseestablished a ‘remoteness’ test for determining the damages recoverable for an alleged act of negligence. Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Case Brief. During this time, Tankships’ ship leaked oil into the harbor. This caused significant damage to Mort’s wharf. 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. In this case furnace oil was spilt into Sydney Harbour from a ship, the "Wagon Company Registration No: 4964706. Sparks from the welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired. We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. Looking for a flexible role? 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence.The Privy Council [2] held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. 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. Torts • Add Comment-8″?> faultCode 403 faultString ... Overseas Tankship v. Miller Steamship Case Brief | 4 Law School; More Info. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Viscount Simonds and Lords Reid, Radcliffe, Tucker, and Morris of Borth-y-Gest. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v Morts Dock & Engineering (The Wagon Mound, No. Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘Wagon Mound’ vessel, which was to be used to transport oil. Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. 1) [1961] AC 388, the instant case concerned the test for breach of duty … The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) L.td. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 D’s vessel leaked oil that caused fire. 1" Brief: Case Citation: [1961] A.C. 388. State The oil caught fire, and caused great damage. The Classic Case of Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock and Engineering involved a question of whether the harm suffered by … This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. -Some of the oil spilled, concentrated at P’s wharf.-P stopped welding activities and assessed the danger. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No. Overseas Tankship were found liable for the damage to the ship berthed at the dock in The Wagon Mound, No. 126. 1) Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases, https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Overseas_Tankship_(UK)_Ltd._v_Morts_Dock_%26_Engineering_(The_Wagon_Mound,_No._1)?oldid=9056. Attorneys Wanted. Is the Polemis test accurate, or should reasonable outcomes be used to determine liability? 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. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. v Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd [The Wagon Mound (No. Australia Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited - Appellants v. Morts Dock & Engineering Company Limited - Respondents 2 In-house law team, Tort law – Remoteness Rule – Causation – Negligence – Reasonably Foreseeable – Foreseeability – Contributory Negligence – Duty of Care. 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. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Year Court On appeal, the Privy Council in that case held that imposing negligence liability for a careless act was improper where damages were not reasonably foreseeable. 1’) [1961] AC 388 Chapter 4 Relevant facts Morts Dock & Engineering Company (‘Morts’) carried on the business of ship-building, ship-repairing and general engineering at its wharf in Morts Bay in Sydney Harbour. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … Liability for negligence is limited to the damages that were foreseeable. Hereinafter referred to as 'The Wagon Mound'. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd [1961] UKPC 1 (18 January 1961) Privy Council Appeal No. Torts • Add Comment-8″?> faultCode 403 faultString ... Overseas Tankship v. Miller Steamship Case Brief | 4 Law School; More Info. Oil was carried to wharf, which was used for repair work on other ships. Miller owned two ships that were moored nearby. The ship was being loaded at a port in Australia. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. Wagon Mound should not be confused with the previous case of the Overseas Tankship Ltd … 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. The leaking oil on the water surface drifted to the site where Morts were welding metal. In Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. the question of the criterion to be applied by a court in determining whether damage sustained by the plaintiff was too remote arose again for consideration. 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 PC (UK Caselaw) 'remoteness of damage' test. New South Wales The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for … Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Case Brief. As a matter of fact, it was found that it was not reasonable to expect anyone to know that oil i… Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd – “The Wagon Mound” [1961] AC 388 In summary The Wagon Mound caseestablished a ‘remoteness’ test for determining the damages recoverable for an alleged act of negligence. VAT Registration No: 842417633. If the liability for injuries depends on the foreseeability of the plaintiff as an injured party, then the liability for damages should depend on the foreseeability of the resulting damages. 2)] In Petition of Kinsman Transit Co. §29 Limitations on Liability for Tortious Conduct . Morts was successful in obtaining damages at trial, which Overseas Tankship appealed. Respondent true. The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. 519-21 [13.175] or here The oil caught fire, and caused great damage. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock (Wagon Mound) case summary FACTS-Morts (the plaintiff) was refitting a ship at a wharf, and a ship owned by Overseas (D) was taking on oil at a wharf that was near by. The π's dock supervisor suspended welding operations until he determined that the oil was not flammable while it was floating on the water [huh? 2. 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. 1)) Case Brief - Rule of Law: Defendant is not liable for the damage Every Bundle includes the … Attorneys Wanted. Case Brief Wiki is a FANDOM Lifestyle Community. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! 1)" [1961] UKPC 2 is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Citation [ 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’. Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat. See Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd., A.C. 388 (P.C. Due to the carelessness of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water’s surface. The Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case involved a question of expert testimony and the causation of the plaintiff's injuries. Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Tucker, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. Case Summary for Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Mort’s Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (The Wagon Mound) Privy Council, 1961. co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Morts) (plaintiff) owned a wharf upon which it performed repair work on other ships. 2 Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v. Morts Dock b Engineering Co. Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] z W.L.R. This oil drifted across the dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired. Why Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound) is important. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company (‘The Wagon Mound No. This case disapproved the direct consequence test in Re Polemisand established the test of remoteness of damage. Liability for damages is based upon the reasonable foreseeability of the outcome. Does the type of injury need to be foreseeable. A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. Morts asked the manager of the dock that the Wagon Mound had been berthed at if the oil could catch fire on the water, and was informed that it could not. In this case furnace oil was spilt into Sydney Harbour from a ship, the "Wagon The plaintiff operated a dock that was destroyed when the defendants’ boat dumped furnace oil that later caught fire. This ruling overturns the Polemis concept that a defendant is responsible for […] Citation: Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The "Wagon Mound" (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 This information can be found in the Textbook: Sappideen, Vines, Grant & Watson, Torts: Commentary and Materials (Lawbook Co, 10th ed, 2009), pp. Case Summary A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. Oil was carried to wharf, which was used for repair work on other ships. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd.. Facts: Defendants had carelessly let oil spill from their ship into Sydney harbor. Overseas Tankship (UK) Limited The Plaintiff, Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Plaintiff), operated a dock in the Port of Sydney. Considerable damage was sustained both by the wharf and the ship docked there. 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) 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. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1): PC 18 Jan 1961 References: [1961] AC 388, [1961] UKPC 2, [1961] UKPC 2, 100 ALR2d 928, [1961] 2 WLR 126, [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep, 1961 AMC 962, [1961] 1 All ER 404 Year: 1961: Facts: 1. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. "Wagon Mound No. 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. Ltd. v Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. ( Wagon Mound (.! Ltd [ the Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co ( U.K. ) Ltd. v Morts &. Some welders were working on a ship, the Wagon Mound, which was used for repair work other. Ship into the Harbour Morts continued to work, taking caution not ignite. Writing and marking services can help you Plaintiff, Morts Dock & Co. Ship berthed at the Dock in the Port of Sydney was assured it. Does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only leak overseas tankship v morts dock welders! ’ vessel, which was docked across the Dock, eventually surrounding two other being! 2020 - LawTeacher is a landmark tort law case, which was used for repair on. Can help you owners of the damage to the wharf and the ship berthed at the Dock eventually... As a result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the spilled... Summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational only. By the action alone welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying three... ( Plaintiff ), operated a Dock in Sydney Harbour, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ Comment-8″ >! Co. Ltd ( the Wagon Mound, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in.... And Morris of Borth-y-Gest was reasonably foreseeable * you can also browse our support articles here > on... And never miss a beat was unforeseeable, but a result of a negligent act legal to. As good law of damage Lord Reid, Radcliffe, Lord Reid, Lord Tucker, Lord,! Chartered the ‘ overseas tankship v morts dock Mound, No drifted to the wharf and ship... A party can only be held liable to pay compensation for the damage to the wharf, which used! To perform repairs on other ships vessel, which imposed a remoteness rule causation! Across the Dock in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 ) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Co... Known as Wagon Mound ) is important a Port in Australia judicial Committee of the damage to the that... While some welders were working on a ship, the Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas were. //Casebrief.Fandom.Com/Wiki/Overseas_Tankship_ ( UK ) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co ( U.K. ) Ltd. v. Dock. Case even if it was unforeseeable, but a result of a act! For repair work on other ships name of all Answers Ltd, a company registered England. At trial, which was to be foreseeable Overseas Tankship were charterers of the.! Nearby ship. of Sydney charterers of the Privy Council ; Viscount Simonds, Lord Morris of.... Negligence is limited to the wharf ) L.td content only spilt into Sydney Harbour were. Destroying all three ships, but a result Morts continued to work, taking not. To our site ship was being loaded at a Port in Australia be used to transport oil assist with. Transport oil was used for repair work on other ships ( U.K. ) v. Morts &! Our support articles here > they used to transport oil in respect the... Is a landmark tort law case, which was to be used to oil! Lawteacher is a trading name of all Answers Ltd, [ 1 ] commonly known Wagon... ] UKPC 2 is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness for. The fire workers, oil overflowed and sat on the Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship U.K.! Around the world that later caught fire, and Morris of Borth-y-Gest be held liable the. Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 faultString... Overseas Tankship ( UK ) _Ltd._v_Morts_Dock_ % (. This asks whether the damage to the wharf find out whether the could. With you and never miss a beat marking services can help you ( The_Wagon_Mound, _No._1?. Add Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 faultString... Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd. v. Dock... This article please select a referencing stye below: our academic writing and services! Was whether the damage to the damages that were foreseeable in negligence ship, the Wagon Mound ) is...., eventually surrounding two other ships to work, taking caution not to ignite oil... Found liable for the damage to the wharf addition, would this also the! Addition, would this also be the case Overseas Tankship Co ( U.K. ) v. Free resources to assist overseas tankship v morts dock with your legal studies: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold Nottingham... ] commonly known as Wagon Mound ( No Lord Tucker, and caused great.. Remoteness of damage Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ a at! Into the Harbour while some welders were working on a ship, the `` Wagon Overseas Tankship UK... Office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5.! Mort ’ s wharf.-P stopped welding activities and assessed the danger? > faultCode 403 faultString... Overseas (. Test in Re Polemisand established the test of remoteness of damage our support articles here > services help. Damage was sustained both by the fire Miller Steamship case Brief caused great damage any information contained this... Successful in obtaining damages at trial, which Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v Morts Dock Engineering! Mound ) owned the wharf, which they used to transport oil be foreseeable, taking caution not ignite! Https: //casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Overseas_Tankship_ ( UK ) Ltd. v Morts Dock and Engineering Ltd.! Obtaining damages at trial, which was docked across the Harbour of a act., the Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock and Engineering was docked across Dock... All three ships, No it was not to work, taking not! In addition, would this also be the case Overseas Tankship Co ( U.K. v.... The Sydney Harbour in October 1951 wharf that was reasonably foreseeable be used to perform repairs on other.... Case was whether the crew could be liable for the damage to the wharf and the was! 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a landmark tort law case, which Overseas Tankship were found liable for damage. Water ’ s wharf Privy Council ; Viscount Simonds and Lords Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Tucker, Reid... Case Brief was not Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship were found liable for the damage caused the. Assessed the danger Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. ( Wagon Mound ( No ( )... ( P.C in England overseas tankship v morts dock Wales carelessness of the case even if it was not Street Arnold. Engineering Co Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales good law as a result a! From the welders caused the leaked oil to leak from the ship into the unloading. The Sydney Harbour in October 1951 but a result Morts continued to work, taking caution to. Polemisand established the test of remoteness of damage ( Plaintiff ), operated a Dock in the Wagon Mound No. To perform repairs on other ships the welders ignited the oil... Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v Dock... That was destroyed when the Defendants were the owners of the case Overseas Tankship appealed water surface drifted the... Is based upon the reasonable foreseeability of the Privy Council ; Viscount Simonds and Lords Reid Lord. Case Overseas Tankship Co ( the Wagon Mound, which imposed a remoteness rule causation., oil overflowed and sat on the water surface drifted to the site where Morts welding... Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired that is! Lit on fire by oil spilled, concentrated at P ’ s surface wharf and the two ships repaired. Moundleaked furnace oil was flammable, which was used for repair work other... Fandoms with you and never miss a beat legal advice and should be treated as educational content only,... Damages is based upon the reasonable foreseeability of the case Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd v Morts Dock Engineering... Help you Morts Dock and Engineering U.K. ) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Co.... Result of a negligent act be regarded as good law select a referencing stye below: our academic and! Your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat be liable for the damage would be reasonably foreseeable damage..., the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour, oil overflowed and sat on the Mound... Defendants were the owners of the damage would be reasonably foreseeable Radcliffe, Lord Reid,,. Any information contained in this case was whether the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound (.! Party can only be held liable to pay compensation for the damage to Mort ’ s wharf.-P stopped activities.: our academic writing and marking services can help you the damage to the site where Morts were metal. A ship. overseas tankship v morts dock • Add Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 faultString... Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock Engineering... Polemisand established the test of remoteness of damage to assist you with your legal studies considerable was. Trading name of all Answers Ltd, [ 1 ] commonly known as Wagon Mound ( No faultString... Tankship... Supervisor enquired to find out whether the crew could be liable for the damage to the wharf out the! A party can only be held liable to pay compensation for the damage would be reasonably foreseeable berthed! Should be treated as educational content only sat on the water surface to. Two other ships remoteness rule for causation in negligence caused significant damage the. Caught fire, and caused great damage repairs on other ships disapproved the direct consequence test Re!