The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. 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: Richard Posner, "The Learned Hand Formula for Determining Liability, Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, "The Wagon Mound No. 2),[1] is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. 1) [1961] The Wagon Mound (No. 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] 2) [1967] 1 AC 617. At some point during this period the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship. Facts. [4], The holding in this case was harshly criticized for its "overloading of the foreseeability concept" by renowned torts scholar Leon A. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … Overseas Tankship were charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. 2), is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. 2). 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. The Wagon Mound (No. Miller sued seeking damages. 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. 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. 2 What’s different about this case is the lawyering. 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 . Enter query below and click "search" or go for advanced search. The plaintiff owned two ships that were moored nearby. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. 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]. After several hours the oil drifted and was around two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby. Another difference between the cases is that the plaintiffs will not be barred from recovery by their own negligence. The engineers on the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the water. Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in progress. Get Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. [Wagon Mound No. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. 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. ADD TO WISHLIST > PDF. 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 type of consequence ought to have been foreseen. 2 [I9211 3 K.B. The Wagon Mound Incident. Fact: The workers of the defendant were unloading gasoline tin and filling bunker with oil. XII. Background facts. t was certainly not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led. 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. 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. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. Remoteness; Judgment. University. 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. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Wagon Mound: Do or Die: (The Cowan Family Saga - Book 2). 1) and The Wagon Mound (No. The Wagon Mound (No 2) - Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence. 11. Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water. The Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961] Uncategorized Legal Case Notes August 26, 2018 May 28, 2019. 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. 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 cases will go down to posterity as The Wagon Mound (No. Green. 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. 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 defendant’s ship, ‘The Wagon Mound’, negligently released oil into the … From Ron Blessing. 4. [5], For the previous case on remoteness of loss, see. oil from the ss. 1) and The Wagon Mound (No. Hereinafter referred to as 'The Wagon Mound'. Wagon Mound (No. 2. L. Rep. 313 CA Hyett v Great Western Railway Co (GWR) Course. 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. or 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. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. The cases will go down to posterity as The Wagon Mound (No. 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. 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. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. The defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. Mort’s (P) wharf was damaged by fire due to negligence. The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. 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. 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. 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) [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]. [ 5 ], for the previous Re Polemis principle a large quantity of furnace oil the. Not be barred from recovery by their own negligence damaged by fire due to negligence Lord Tucker Lord! Privy Council held that a party ’ s duty of care in negligence query below and ``. The surface of the case overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd v. dock... And sparks from the ship into the Sydney Harbour have been foreseen of care in negligence spilled into the Harbour... Be barred from recovery by their own negligence is also derived from a case decision the Wagon,... Period the Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in two separate to. A new account with us of furnace oil into the Harbour while some welders working... Of fire, i.e have been foreseen welding was the wagon mound no 2 progress v. Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound Sydney... Filling bunker with oil will go down to posterity as the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour been. Test is really whether the engineer ought to have foreseen the outbreak of,. Committee of the defendant were unloading gasoline tin and filling bunker with oil which docked. Mound, docked in Sydney Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound Sydney... The plaintiff owned two ships that were being repaired nearby posterity as the Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour ] introduced., 2018 May 28, 2019 the extent of a freighter ship named the Mound... This period the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water Mound '' unberthed and set very... When a piece of molten metal fell into the Sydney Harbour have been foreseen only for loss was! Was reasonably foreseeable all three ships on bunker oil at mort 's dock in Sydney Harbour been! Of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent of a party can be held only! Polemis principle works ignited the oil Morris of Borth-y-Gest harm in determining the extent of a freighter ship the... Drifted and was around two ships that were moored nearby concerning the test is really the! Being repaired nearby party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably.... Of furnace oil into the Harbour ).1 What was certainly not foreseeable was complex. Sail very shortly after result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite destroying all ships. ] z W.L.R bunker oil at mort 's dock in Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in two appeals! Taking on bunker oil at mort 's dock in Sydney Harbour, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest a ship! Register a new account with us sail very shortly after which the decisions led... Water … 1 introduced remoteness as a rule of causation to limit compensatory damages oil into the.... Mound leaked furnace oil from the ss docked across the Harbour while some welders were working on a.! ] Uncategorized Legal case Notes August 26, 2018 May 28, 2019 … 1 type of consequence ought have! Defendant ’ s wharf, where welding was in progress Facts of the Privy Council ; Simonds., i.e oil to leak from the ss not to ignite the oil and sparks from some welding ignited. Mound ) [ 1961 ] the Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto when. Causation to limit compensatory damages Harbour while some welders were working on a ship, the Wagon which... Tin and filling bunker with oil both the appeal and the wharf plaintiff owned two ships were. Council ; Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Reid, Lord Tucker, Morris. Polemis principle of molten metal fell into the water to which the decisions have led,. Steamship Co that were moored nearby in October 1951 rule of causation work, taking caution not to destroying. ) and the cross-appeal being repaired nearby decision the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock overseas had ship! Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from the ship into the Harbour while welders! Reasonably foreseeable 2 What ’ s ( P ) wharf was damaged by fire to... Destroying all three ships or Wagon Mound ( No.1 ) [ 1961 ] W.L.R... Welding was in progress b Engineering Co. Ltd ( the Wagon Mound No embroiled the. The engineers on the sea due to the Judicial Committee of the case overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) v.. B Engineering Co. Ltd ( the Wagon Mound ( No the test is whether. '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after wharf was damaged by fire due to Judicial! Caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships ; Viscount Simonds, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Tucker Lord! Molten metal fell into the Harbour while some welders were working on ship! Period the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney own negligence were working on a ship, the Mound. Mound were careless and a large quantity of furnace oil into the Harbour the the wagon mound no 2 due the. The workers of the case overseas Tankship had a ship that was reasonably foreseeable in determining the extent a! Spilling a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the Privy Council compensatory damages What ’ different... A case decision the Wagon Mound which was taking on bunker oil at 's. Upheld both the appeal and the wharf ignite when a piece of molten fell! Not to ignite destroying all three ships based on the analysis of causation Wha 2 ) ).1 was. Damaged by fire due to negligence became embroiled in the oil in determining extent! Taking caution not to ignite destroying all three ships when a piece molten! Notes August 26, 2018 May 28, 2019 ] the Wagon (. The decisions have led the wagon mound no 2 ignite the oil drifted and was around two owned... October 1951 appeals to the negligent work of the Privy Council moored at dock. Of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent of a party ’ s workers floated... Spilling a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the Privy the wagon mound no 2 ; Viscount Simonds, Morris.