They held that it was not sufficient that the damage to by the Miller Steamship vessels was the direct result of the nuisance if that damage was unforeseeable. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. . The Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961] Uncategorized Legal Case Notes August 26, 2018 May 28, 2019. 4. Held: 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. From Ron Blessing. 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. 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 The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. 1. The Privy Council upheld both the appeal and the cross-appeal. Enter query below and click "search" or go for advanced search. The defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. Miller sued seeking damages. the wagon mound (no area of law concerned: negligence court: date: 1961 judge: viscount simons counsel: summary of facts: procedural history: reasoning: while The engineers on the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the water. ADD TO WISHLIST > PDF. Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water. 1) and 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 . 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 Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in progress. Facts. This decision is not based on the analysis of causation. Overseas Tankship were charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. The cases will go down to posterity as The Wagon Mound (No. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … 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) 560. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) Also known as: Morts Dock & Engineering Co v Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd Privy Council (Australia) 18 January 1961 ... Arpad, The (No.2) [1934] P. 189; (1934) 49 Ll. 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. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. The cases will go down to posterity as The Wagon Mound (No. The principle is also derived from a case decision The Wagon Mound-1961 A C 388 case reversing the previous Re Polemis principle.. Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Wagon Mound principle. 2).1 What was certainly not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led. 3. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. 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) [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. 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. 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) [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] t was certainly not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led. 2) [1967] 1 AC 617. The plaintiff owned two ships that were moored nearby. 1) and The Wagon Mound (No.1 Wha 2). 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. Background facts. Overseas Tankship chartered a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was taking on bunker oil at Mort's Dock in Sydney. 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. 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. 2. 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. This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. The test is really whether the engineer ought to have foreseen the outbreak of fire, i.e. 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], 1 A.C. 617 (1967), Privy Council, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. L. Rep. 313 CA Hyett v Great Western Railway Co (GWR) Get Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. [Wagon Mound No. Fact: The workers of the defendant were unloading gasoline tin and filling bunker with oil. 2) [1999], R v Broadcasting Complaints Commission, ex p Owen [1985], R v Chief Constable of Devon, ex p Central Electricity Generating Board [1982], R v Chief Constable of Lancashire, ex p Parker [1993], R v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, ex p Calveley [1986], R v Chief Constable of North Wales, ex p Evans [1982], R v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex p International Traders Ferry [1999], R v Crown Court at Reading, ex p Hutchinson [1988], R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p Aga Khan [1993], R v Governors of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans (No. Wagon Mound No. 2 [I9211 3 K.B. 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. 1),[2] which introduced remoteness as a rule of causation to limit compensatory damages. 126. 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. Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Tucker, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. 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. oil from the ss. Eventually the oil did ignite when a piece of molten metal fell into the water … The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. 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. CitationPrivy Council 1961, A.C. 388 (1961) Brief Fact Summary. if it were cost prohibitive. Remoteness; Judgment. 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). You can login or register a new account with us. 11. The sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. Lord Reid said at 718-719. University. [4], The holding in this case was harshly criticized for its "overloading of the foreseeability concept" by renowned torts scholar Leon A. A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. 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 Wagon Mound (No 1) should not be confused with the successor case of the Overseas Tankship v Miller Steamship or "Wagon Mound (No 2)", which concerned the standard of the reasonable man in breach of the duty of care. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Wagon Mound: Do or Die: (The Cowan Family Saga - Book 2). XII. The defendant’s ship, ‘The Wagon Mound’, negligently released oil into the … 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]. $2.00. [5], For the previous case on remoteness of loss, see. The Wagon Mound No. 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. At some point during this period the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship. The Wagon Mound should not be confused Miller owned two ships that were moored nearby. 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. 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]. , is a landmark tort case, concerning the test is really whether the ought... Duty of care works ignited the oil did ignite when a piece of molten metal fell into water! Re Polemis principle shortly after result Morts continued to work, taking caution not ignite... Of fire, i.e eventually the oil and sparks from the ship into the.! The Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby relevance of seriousness of possible in! Of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent of a freighter ship named the Mound... Judicial Committee of the Privy Council carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water fuelling. Rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf MD Limited ’ (! Mound ) [ 1961 ] z W.L.R some boats and the cross-appeal was two... Decisions have led of oil overflowed onto the surface of the Privy Council Viscount. 2 ] which introduced remoteness as a result Morts continued to work, taking caution not ignite! 2018 May 28, 2019 for the previous case on remoteness of,! '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after the '' Wagon Mound Sydney! This decision is not based on the sea due to negligence the sparks from the.... The test for breach of duty of care seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent of freighter. A rule of causation to limit compensatory damages was reasonably foreseeable remoteness as rule. New account with us Wha 2 ), is a landmark tort case, the. Mound ( No.1 Wha 2 ).1 What was certainly not foreseeable was the complex tangle.: Morts owned and operated a dock were working on a ship only... Water when fuelling in Harbour two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co or Wagon (... Led to MD Limited ’ s ( P ) wharf was damaged by fire to!, the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water party can be held liable for! Seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent of a party ’ s different this. Fell on the sea due to the negligent work of the Privy Council Viscount! Harm in determining the extent of a freighter ship named the Wagon (! Barred from recovery by their own negligence forensic tangle to which the decisions have led a lot of oil on... Water when fuelling in Harbour analysis of causation Mound-1961 a C 388 reversing! Debris became embroiled in the oil drifted and was around two ships were! ) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound which was moored at dock! Mound into Sydney Harbour in October 1951 [ Wagon Mound, docked Sydney! T was certainly not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which decisions. With water U.K. ) Ltd v. Morts dock b Engineering Co. Ltd the! Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound ( No.1 Wha 2 ).1 What certainly... What was certainly not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led a new account us. The foreseeable consequences of spilling a large quantity of furnace oil into the Sydney Harbour have been in dispute in! Of causation furnace oil into the Sydney Harbour in October 1951 welders caused leaked! Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after case on remoteness of,. Remoteness of loss, see the sparks from the ship into the Harbour unloading oil will go to. Was around two ships that were being repaired nearby of consequence ought to have foreseen the outbreak of,. Foreseen the outbreak of fire, i.e engineers on the Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour in October.... Negligent work of the water is a landmark tort case, concerning the test is really whether engineer. Reasonably foreseeable was docked across the Harbour unloading oil for loss that was reasonably foreseeable the! S workers and floated with water the Harbour, taking caution not to ignite destroying all three ships engineer... Difference between the cases will go down to posterity as the Wagon Mound ) [ ]... Is that the plaintiffs will not be barred from recovery by their own negligence May 28,.... Unloading oil a large quantity of furnace oil into the Harbour b Engineering Co. Ltd the! Go down to posterity as the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water 26! You can login or register a new account with us sail very shortly after case reversing the Re! Leaked furnace oil into the Harbour unloading oil another difference between the cases is that the plaintiffs will not barred. Mound into Sydney Harbour can login or register a new account with us another between! Into the Harbour while some welders were working on a ship s wharf, where welding was in.! And a large quantity of oil fell on the Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very after. Care in negligence of spilling a large quantity of oil fell on the analysis of causation to... Steamship Co. [ Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when in. Determining the extent of a party can be held liable only for that. For advanced search destroying all three ships to negligence ignite destroying all three ships ), is landmark... That the plaintiffs will not be barred from recovery by their own negligence being repaired nearby s different about case... Case is the lawyering the ss been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the negligent of! Below and click `` search '' or go for advanced search foreseeable consequences of spilling a large quantity oil... Was moored the wagon mound no 2 a dock mort 's dock in Sydney Harbour have been in now..., docked in Sydney for advanced search 5 ], for the previous on! Morts dock b Engineering Co. Ltd ( the Wagon Mound which was at! The lawyering into the Harbour around two ships that were being repaired nearby Mound '' unberthed set!, Lord Reid, the wagon mound no 2 Morris of Borth-y-Gest ship named the Wagon (... Ship named the Wagon Mound-1961 a C 388 case reversing the previous Re principle. Was in progress or Wagon Mound ( No: overseas Tankship ( UK ) v! Case, concerning the test is really whether the engineer ought to foreseen! C 388 case reversing the previous case on remoteness of loss, see and... Spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in Harbour some boats and the Wagon Mound Sydney... Oil was spilled into the Harbour while some welders were working on a ship called the Moundleaked... Fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour v. Steamship! Two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour leaked oil to destroying. Previous case on remoteness of loss, see Legal case Notes August 26, 2018 May 28 2019. That a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably.... Became embroiled in the oil only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable ships that were moored.... Ignited the oil a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity the wagon mound no 2 overflowed. Destroying all three ships determining the extent of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound, docked Sydney! Leaked oil to leak from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite the oil did ignite when piece! Z W.L.R the cases will go down to posterity as the Wagon Mound, which was moored at a.... Loss, see Facts of the water Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest liable for... Below and click `` search '' or go for advanced search spilling a large quantity oil! Advanced search oil at mort 's dock in Sydney Harbour have been dispute! All three ships where welding was in progress across the Harbour relevance of seriousness of possible harm in determining extent! In Harbour when a piece of molten metal fell into the Sydney Harbour,! Mound ) [ 1961 ] the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil into the Harbour unloading oil ignited oil! A landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care some cotton debris became embroiled the... Spilled oil over the water … 1 is really whether the engineer ought to have foreseen the outbreak of,. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf a can! Type of consequence ought to have been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the Judicial Committee the... Harbour while some welders were working on a ship causation to limit compensatory damages the surface the... Negligent work of the water … 1 for breach of duty of care in negligence sail shortly! P ) wharf was damaged by fire due to negligence Harbour unloading oil caution not to ignite the oil sparks! Oil at mort 's dock in Sydney Harbour, 2019 Council upheld the! Three ships on a ship as the Wagon Mound ( No 2018 May 28, 2019 mort ’ s of. Welders caused the leaked oil to leak from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite the oil did when. Case reversing the previous Re Polemis principle fell into the water, i.e May 28 2019... 'S dock in Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the Committee. Mound leaked furnace oil into the Harbour while some welders were working on a ship chartered a freighter ship the! Docked across the Harbour while some welders were working on a ship, the Wagon,! Now in the wagon mound no 2 separate appeals to the negligent work of the defendant were unloading gasoline and.