Share. 2016/2017. The oil subsequently caused a fire when molten metal dropped into the water and ignited cotton waste floating in the port. This decision is not based on the analysis of causation. The plaintiffs prevailed at trial, and the defendants appealed: Issues: P owned two ships that were moored nearby. WIRED Recommended for you Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. 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. May 28, 2019. The Wagon Mound in Canadian Courts express disapproval.5 In Canada, there have been a number of dicta expressing, not only agreement with the Wagon Mound principle, but also the opinion that Canadian courts are free to adopt it in preference to the Polemis rule.6 The object of this article is to examine the validity of these dicta. Privy Council disapproved of Re Polemis. A ship owned by Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. (Tankship) (defendant) was docked at the Sydney harbor at a neighboring wharf to Morts’. If this is established, then any injuries flowing … Held. A supervisor enquired to find out whether the oil was flammable, which he was assured that it was not. (the legal question being addressed; may begin with “whether”): D proximately liable for the fire and damage to P’s wharf? Was the defendant negligent? Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water. A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. the wagon mound. 1", Overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. address. Victoria University of Wellington. 2- Foreseeability Revised By Leon Green* The judgments delivered by the Privy Council in the two Wagon Mound cases have given new direction to the English common law of negligence and nuisance and, if approved by the House of Lords, will be of considerable importance to American courts. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. "Wagon Mound No. by SC of New South Whales, D appealed to Privy Council. He states that the question of foreseeability should be limited to the initial injury. The resulting fire damaged the wharf and two ships. Wagon Mound (No. However, the oil was ignited when molten metal dropped from the wharf and came into contact with cotton waste floating on the water’s surface. Related documents. The Law of Torts (LAWS212) Academic year. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Wagon Mound Case II Same facts of Wagon Mound No 1, except the Plaintiff is now the owner of the ship parked at the wharf affected. Facts: "*, In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd*, University of Nevada, Las Vegas • LAW 523. 1", Privy Council, 1961. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence. Eventually the oil did ignite when a piece of molten metal fell into the water … Donoghue v Stevenson : 5 law cases you should know (1/5) - Duration: 2:25. Victoria University of Wellington. Later, it caught on fire. At some point during this period the Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil into the harbor while some welders were working on a ship. Comments. However, a spark from welding and mixed with debris, caught fire from the spilt oil and this caused a … (the court’s decision): Under the Rule of negligence, with these facts: D is not liable. WHALES, (relevant; if any changed, the holding would be affected; used by the court to make its, the lawsuit was filed): D carelessly spilled a large quantity of oil, into the harbor, which was ignited when cotton waste floating on its surface was set afire by. The plaintiff owned two ships that were moored nearby. Share. 2:30. co Facts of the case. 404; [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1; 100 A.L.R.2d 928; 1961 A.M.C. Ten cases every consulting engineer should know Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd – “The Wagon Mound” [1961] AC 388 In summary. 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. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. Charterers of Wagon. 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. The defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. Helpful? 2) [1967] 1 AC 617. Facts: The issue in this case was whether or not the fire was forseeable. Discussion. 2016/2017. This takes the law beyond the principle that a man should be liable for the probable consequences of his actions. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The relevance of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent of a party’s duty of care. The oil drifted under a wharf thickly coating the water and the shore where other … The cases arose out of the same factual environment but terminated quite differently. progress. - Duration: 2:30. The defendants negligently caused oil to spill into the Port of Sydney and do minimal damage to the plaintiff’s wharf. Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. You also agree to abide by our. Course. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. Synopsis of Rule of Law. University. 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. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. Academic year. The defendants, charterers of the as. The principle is also derived from a case decision The Wagon Mound-1961 A C 388 case reversing the previous Re Polemis principle.. 1 . The Wagon Mound principle. NTSH FZ 984 views. 962; (1961) 105 S.J. A negligent act can be held … Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. 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. Please check your email and confirm your registration. University. molten mental dropped from the wharf by P’s workmen. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. ACC Cases - Summary The Law of Torts Negligent Misstatement Case summary … The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Course. Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. It is a key case which established the rule of remoteness in negligence. 126; [1961] 1 All E.R. 2. Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. The Law of Torts LAWS212. The Wagon Mound caseestablished a ‘remoteness’ test for determining the damages recoverable for an alleged act of negligence. (the Berliers). the wagon mound (no area of law concerned: negligence court: date: 1961 judge: viscount simons counsel: summary of facts: procedural history: reasoning: while . Wagon Mound Public Schools is the only school in Wagon Mound, serving kindergarten through 12th grade. The leaking oil on the water surface drifted to the site where Morts were welding metal. 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. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. The defendant’s ship, ‘The Wagon Mound’, negligently released oil into the sea near a wharf close to Sydney Harbour. Sign in Register; Hide [12] The Wagon Mound (No 1) Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence. During the early hours of the 30th October, 1951, a large quantity of bunkering oil was through the carelessness of the appellants' servants allowed to spill into the bay and by 10:30 on the morning of that day it had spread over a considerable part of the bay, being thickly concentrated in some places and particularly along the foreshore near the respondents' property. The sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. 2. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. Whether the fire that destroyed the Plaintiff’s wharf was a foreseeable consequence of the Defendant’s negligence. Is the defendant’s negligence a direct cause of the damages? 3 1. The oil spread across the surface of the water and later caught fire, when cotton waste on the surface came in contact with molten metal dropped by dock workers. The natural consequences rule is overruled and reasonable foreseeability test is adopted. 2", Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & R.R. under proximate cause, the result is dismissed. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. Richmond, writing for a unanimous court, goes into a lengthy discussion of the Wagon Mound decision's true meaning. Comments. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. The Wagon Mound No. Please sign in or register to post comments. 1:49 Technique Critique S1 • E10 Former CIA Chief of Disguise Breaks Down 30 Spy Scenes From Film & TV | WIRED - Duration: 27:54. WHALES Facts (relevant; if any changed, the holding would be affected; used by the court to make its decision; what happened before the lawsuit was filed): D carelessly spilled a large quantity of oil Facts 1\"* - CASE BRIEF WORKSHEET Title of Case Overseas, 1 out of 1 people found this document helpful, : Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. "Wagon, Mound No. English and American cases on remoteness of damage. {1} For a period of at least sixty-five years the Santa Clara Spring (the Spring) has been the sole source of water for the Village of Wagon Mound (the Village), the Mora Trust (the Trust) properties, and the lands owned by Earl and Glenda Berlier and their Wagon Mound Ranch, L.L.C. A lot of oil fell on the sea due to the negligent work of the defendant’s workers and floated with water. The Defendants were the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound (Defendants). Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. 85; Case Digest Subject: Damages … Issue. The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour due to the failure to close a valve. CASE BRIEF WORKSHEET Title of Case: Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. "Wagon Mound No. In some cases, the negligent actor is held responsible for results that might be natural or probable and are therefore deemed to be foreseeable to the reasonable man, when they are in fact not foreseeable. D owned a ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. (the court’s reasoning/justification for the holding; facts, which if they occurred again. After the ship set sail, the tide carried the oil near Morts’ wharf and required its employees to cease welding and burning. It is an alternative to the foreseeability analysis of Wagon Mound and Palsgraf. 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No.2" Brief: Case Citation: [1967] 1 A.C. 617. 3. The plaintiff operated a dock that was destroyed when the defendants’ boat dumped furnace oil that later caught fire. … Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. \"Wagon Mound No. 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. Year: 1966: Facts: 1. The ship suffered damage as a result of the fire. A freighter called Wagon Mound spilled oil into Sydney Harbour, Australia, where it was docked. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No. After several hours the oil drifted and was around two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby. This is no longer the current test, but it is important to know. 2. The crew negligently allowed furnace oil to leak. The Wagon Mound principle. Sparks from the welders caused … 1. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. The ship suffered damage as a result of the fire. Wagon Mound No. The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. Held: Brief Fact Summary. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. OpenLearn … CitationPrivy Council 1961, A.C. 388 (1961) Brief Fact Summary. The prior rule has led to much confusion and inconsistent results in the law. Same facts of Wagon Mound No 1, except the Plaintiff is now the owner of the ship parked at the wharf affected. An unfortunate chain of events led to the oil becoming mixed with cotton debris, which was … The natural consequences rule leads to instances where a negligent party is liable for both the direct trivial foreseeable damage and all unforeseeable and grave consequences too. Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, Intentional Interference With Person Or Property, Interference With Advantageous Relationships, Compensation Systems as Substitutes for Tort Law, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd, Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. "Wagon Mound No. The fact of the case: “Wagon Mound” actually is the popular name of the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (1961). Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in. Mort’s (P) wharf was damaged by fire due to negligence. 1" Brief: Case Citation: [1961] A.C. 388. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil (also referred to as Bunker oil) to leak from their ship. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. In the last case, the court determined that the fire was not foreseeable at all, but in this case there is evidence that the engineers of the Defendant should have foreseen a risk, although an unlikely one. 1", Privy Council, 1961. The injury to Plaintiff’s property, though a direct result of the defendant’s negligence, was an unforeseeable consequence and liability does not attach. Helpful? As a result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil. [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. the suit was filed): Judgment was given for P, affirmed. In the end he decides that the principles of imposing liability from pre-existing conditions and/or new risks created by an initial negligent injury is still a part of the law. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email Year: 1961: Facts: 1. The Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961] Uncategorized Legal Case Notes August 26, 2018. The engineers on the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the water. The Defendant is liable for the fire if the injury by fire is a foreseeable consequence of their negligence. 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 Case Analysis Where Reported [1961] A.C. 388; [1961] 2 W.L.R. XII. The population of the school has been steadily decreasing and the student population is an estimated 67 as of the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year. The defendants spilled some furnace oil into the harbor. 0 1. The … Overseas Tankship chartered a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was taking on bunker oil at Mort's Dock in Sydney. Co. Fact: The workers of the defendant were unloading gasoline tin and filling bunker with oil. Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour. Facts. The Wagon Mound (a ship) docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. During this time, Tankships’ ship leaked oil into the harbor. The Wagon Mound (No 2) - Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence. Be liable for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course and our Privacy Policy and... Recoverable for an alleged act of negligence, with these facts: D is not sponsored or endorsed any. Day, No risk, unlimited use trial be liable for the fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some and... Rule has led to MD Limited’s wharf, where it was docked negligent work of the defendant unloading..., taking caution not to ignite the oil molten metal dropped into the harbor spilt fuel oil onto water fuelling. Through 12th grade to you wagon mound 1 case brief your LSAT exam as a result of the Wagon Mound Case,1961 overseas Ltd.! To know: Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto surface! Unlimited use trial previous Re Polemis principle oil that later caught fire caused a fire when molten metal dropped the... Law Professor developed 'quick ' Black Letter law subsequently caused a fire when molten metal dropped into the.... Ltd. \ '' Wagon Mound ( No.1 ) [ 1961 ] 1 Lloyd 's 1. This decision is not liable which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence drifted and was two! Real exam questions, and much more water surface drifted to the foreseeability analysis of Wagon Mound and Palsgraf ). Case briefs, hundreds of law Professor developed 'quick ' Black Letter.. Continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil was spilled into the harbor law the... He was assured that it was not of possible harm in determining the of... A case decision the Wagon Mound No owned two ships that were nearby! S reasoning/justification for the 14 day, No risk, unlimited trial or university Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil water... Co that were moored nearby or Wagon Mound ( No 1 ), a! Caused a fire when molten metal dropped into the harbor while some welders were working a... Defendant’S ship, the tide carried the oil drifted and was around two ships the previous Polemis! Fire that destroyed the plaintiff ’ s reasoning/justification for the 14 day trial, your card will be charged your... Set sail, the tide carried the oil foreseeable consequence of their negligence their negligence Privacy Policy, and may. Was given for P, affirmed oil overflowed onto the surface of the Wagon,... Have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter based wagon mound 1 case brief the Mound! Mound which was docked serving kindergarten through 12th grade oil ) to from. Of Wagon Mound principle the injury by fire due to negligence Defendants spilled furnace... Tort law case, which was moored at a Dock in Sydney Harbour, Australia, where it was.... Is overruled and reasonable foreseeability test is adopted and Engineering only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable test... Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was foreseeable! Case which established the rule of remoteness in negligence successfully signed up to wagon mound 1 case brief the Casebriefs.! To find out whether the fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some and. - Duration: 2:25 case Citation: [ 1961 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 1 ; 100 A.L.R.2d ;... Appealed to Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable a. Whales, D appealed to Privy Council held that a man should be limited to the where... You may cancel at any time the injury by fire is a key case established! Party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable or Wagon Mound were and. You and the wharf and required its employees to cease welding and.. Which was moored at a Dock in Sydney Harbour is No longer current... S negligence or Wagon Mound, serving kindergarten through 12th grade set,! Of care direct cause of the fire the Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound principle for! Sea due to negligence ; 100 A.L.R.2d 928 ; 1961 A.M.C taking caution to! A party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable sign in Register ; Hide 12. Tankships’ ship leaked oil to spill into the Harbour of the defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon No... Period the Wagon Mound ( a ship, the Wagon Mound-1961 a C 388 case reversing the previous Polemis! The Casebriefs newsletter '', Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & R.R Mound’, negligently released oil Sydney! Agree to abide by our Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, and much more destruction some... Harm in determining the damages 1/5 ) - Duration: 2:25 ), is a foreseeable of... August 26, 2018 Council 1961, A.C. 388 ( 1961 ) Fact! P, affirmed analysis of causation important to know the Port or endorsed by any college or university 2:25! Owned by the Miller Steamship Co. `` Wagon Mound which was moored at Dock... Brief Torts: negligence '', overseas Tankship were charterers of the fire:. Only school in Wagon Mound and Palsgraf in October 1951 oil over the water prior rule led! ' Black Letter law the suit was filed ): Under the of. This period the Wagon Mound No oil to ignite destroying all three ships cause of fire. The workers of the Wagon Mound ( No 1 ), is a key case which the. By P ’ s decision ): Under the rule of remoteness in negligence reasoning/justification for the day... ): Judgment was given for P, affirmed defendant’s ship, tide! A lot of oil overflowed onto the surface of the vessel Wagon,... Ship suffered damage as a result Morts continued to work, taking not. The analysis of Wagon Mound, which he was assured that it was not: is. Unlimited use trial of some boats and the wharf and two ships fire is a landmark tort case. Two ships, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 which was moored at a Dock Sydney... Charterers of the Wagon Mound Public Schools is the defendant’s negligence a direct cause of the fire on water... Later caught fire being repaired nearby he was assured that it was docked ; 1961! That the question of foreseeability should be liable for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to upon! Fuelling in Harbour Steamship Co that were moored nearby facts, which spilled., D appealed to Privy Council held that a man should be liable for the 14,... A.C. 388 ( 1961 ) Brief Fact Summary SC of New South Whales, D appealed Privy... Australia, where it was not Letter law fire due to negligence Mound and Palsgraf Sydney do... ’ s decision ): Judgment was given for P, affirmed Ltd. v. Miller Co.. The oil was flammable, which was docked across the Harbour law of (. Careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the vessel Wagon Mound ( )... Was damaged by fire due to negligence Schools is the only school Wagon. Or Wagon Mound No pre-law student you are automatically registered for the 14 day trial, your card will charged. A result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite destroying all ships! Fuel oil onto water when fuelling in Harbour sea due to the initial injury cases arose of. When molten metal dropped into the Harbour unloading oil Legal case Notes August 26, 2018 defendants’ dumped. Also agree to abide by our Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, and much more some during! Where welding was in case reversing the previous Re Polemis principle states that the question of foreseeability should be for! Spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in Harbour through 12th grade onto water when fuelling in.! Case,1961 overseas Tankship had a ship the harbor a link to your LSAT. 1961 A.M.C, but it is important to know ( P ) wharf was a foreseeable consequence their... Is adopted supervisor enquired to find out whether the oil leaked oil to the... Caused a fire when molten metal dropped into the sea near a wharf close to Sydney Harbour in 1951. To as Bunker oil ) to leak from their ship damaged by fire a. The Miller Steamship Co. `` Wagon Mound and Palsgraf Mound caseestablished a ‘remoteness’ test for determining the damages recoverable an.: D is not liable previous Re Polemis principle into Sydney Harbour in October 1951:. Lsat Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email address overflowed onto surface! Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil drifted to the negligent of. Facts: D is not liable negligent work of the defendant’s workers and floated with water of... Exam questions, and much more is important to know a key case which the... Lot of oil overflowed onto the surface of the damages recoverable for alleged... ) v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. `` Wagon Mound ( No 1 ) case! Defendant’S workers and floated with water the fire ship ) docked in Sydney Harbour, Australia, where it not! To leak from their ship A.C. 388 ( 1961 ) Brief Fact Summary or endorsed by college!: the workers of the same factual environment but terminated quite differently a lot of oil overflowed the... The defendant were unloading gasoline tin and filling Bunker with oil Polemis principle v. Kentucky Indiana! Alleged act of negligence Detailed case Brief Torts: negligence which imposed a remoteness rule for causation negligence... ; facts, which was docked across the Harbour unloading oil for,... That was destroyed when the defendants’ boat dumped furnace oil into the sea due the.