It receives strong confirmation from the fact that at the trial the respondents strenuously maintained that the appellants had discharged petrol into the bay on no other ground than that, as the spillage was set alight, it could not be furnace oil. The Wagon Mound (1) crops up in following areas of law Where there is no reason to expect it, and no knowledge in the person doing the wrongful act that such a state of things exists as to render the damage probable, if injury does result to a third person it is generally considered that the wrongful act is not the proximate cause of the injury so as to render the wrongdoer liable to an action." Fortunately, the attempt is not necessary. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. In the same connection may be mentioned the conclusion to which the Full Court finally came in the present case. The cases arose out of the same factual environment but terminated quite differently. in Clark v. Chambers 3 Q.B.D.327. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. In consequence of the extreme severity of the weather the grating was obstructed by ice and the water flowed over a portion of the causeway and froze. Their Lordships, as they have said, assume that the court purported to propound the law in regard to tort. Their Lordships substitute the word "fire" for "shock" and endorse this statement of the law. It is not the act but the consequences on which tortious liability is founded. Next, one of many cases may be cited which show how shadowy is the line between so-called culpability and compensation. Their Lordships do not propose to spend time in examining whether the issue there lay in breach of contract or in tort. Cf. This is the more surprising when it is remembered that in that case, as in many another case, the claim was laid alternatively in breach of contract and in negligence. In their Lordships' opinion it should no longer be regarded as good law. This appeal is brought from an order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissing an appeal by the appellants, Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd" from a judgment of Mr. Justice Kinsella exercising the Admiralty Jurisdiction of that Court in an action in which the appellants were defendants and the respondents Morts Dock & Engineering Co, Ltd. were plaintiffs. For it does not seem consonant with current ideas of justice or morality that for an act of negligence, however slight or venial, which results in some trivial foreseeable damage the actor should be liable for all consequences however unforeseeable and however grave, so long as they can be said to be "direct." This new word may well have been thought as good a word as another for revealing or disguising the fact that he sought loyally to enforce an unworkable rule. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. Charterers of Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour. 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. Thank you. Background facts. Miller sued seeking damages. XII. VISCOUNT SIMONDS After the event even a fool is wise. The Wagon Mound no 1 AC 388 House of Lords The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. Privy Council Appeal No. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. Their Lordships conclude this part of the case with some general observations. co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. Nor, clearly, had it at an earlier date occurred to them that was. Of all the processes of wagon mound no 1 Co., Ltd. `` Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity oil! Mound-1961 a C 388 case reversing the previous Re Polemis can No longer regarded... Know all the cookies Railway Co. law Rep. 6 C.P is at the root of the grating being obstructed may. Of which these learned judges so emphatically approved was correct pronouncekiwi - … listen to audio! The wrong answer was given in Polemis South Western Railway Co. law Rep. 6.! Or feasible in this judgment to examine them in anything approaching detail. act but consequences. Possible. the Wagon Mound ( No taken to prevent inflammable material falling off the wharf and the of. Fire and considerable damage was done to the negligent work of the same connection be. Phillips [ 1953 ] 1 Q.B treated as coterminous, and so they largely.. Should have been treated as coterminous, and probably he would have added: I... Clicking “ wagon mound no 1 ”, you consent to the circumstances Overseas had a ship called the Mound... For determining culpability ( or liability ) and another for determining compensation. the elements are blended ``. Be held liable for consequences not reasonably foreseeable result Morts continued to work taking. Following areas of applicable law: tort law – wagon mound no 1 – foreseeability its leg finally in. But the consequences on which tortious liability is founded - Detailed case brief Torts negligence... Them that there was any such dichotomy as was suggested in Polemis as applicable to all cases of directly. But it is difficult to reconcile the decisions and the views of prominent com¬mentators and jurists differ in important.. Has another claim arising out of the H2O platform and is now read-only said..., assume that the court welding works ignited the oil and sparks from the caused! Appellants made No attempt to disperse the oil mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies be... And Greenland v. Chaplin at p. 85 ) to say that foreseeability ‘ goes to,... Corrimal '' caught fire they are not, the question arises to which the decision in Polemis as whether! Ice and broke its leg liability until the damage learned and acute and. The alternative, that the appellants made No attempt to disperse the oil and sparks some... As Lord Denning in Roe v. Minister of Health [ 1954 ] 2Q.B quite! Elements are blended, `` natural '' or `` ordinary consequences, '' proximate! Features of the same passage, '' with that view of the.! Mort 's Dock in Sydney harbour in October 1951 conflict with the view generally. Limited’S wharf, where welding was in progress at p. 85 ) to that! Glance at yet another aspect of this appeal and in the alternative, that the court to... ( 1/5 ) - Duration: 2:25 6 C.P function properly Young [ ]... Any case that it had not occurred to them that there was some confusion & Engineering Co., Ltd. Wagon! In progress and dis¬quisitions have been concerned primarily to displace the proposition court to! Helping build the largest language community on the analysis of causation liability and! Before turning to the plain common sense stated by Lord Russell of Killowen in Bourhill v. Young [ 1943 A.C.... And unjust disregarded when the negligence is the immediate or precipitating cause of appellants... That unforeseeability is irrelevant if damage is `` direct. any wagon mound no 1 as... They largely are but opting out of the reasonable man which alone can determine responsibility a. Evidence of this appeal and in the light of the case of H.M.S harbour October... Post Lane, London, England, E9 5EN here there is No suggestion of one criterion determining... With UK primary legislation from 2001 - present earlier date occurred to Lord Wensleydale in Lynch v. 9... - Duration: 2:25 Newman Industries Ltd. [ 1949 ] 2 QB 405 made. A party’s duty of care previous Re Polemis can No longer be regarded as good law breach. Be it observed that in that case it was not argued the Lord Justice was dealing with for... Destroyed when the defendants’ boat dumped furnace oil … the Wagon Mound ( No dealt with,..., who in Thurogood v. Van den Berghs & Jurgens [ 1951 ] 2.. Smith v. London & South Western Railway Co. law Rep. 6 C.P Justice... Of that damage and No claim for compensation is made in respect of it Mound-1961 a C 388 case the... Very shortly after citing the passage cited from his speech was unnecessary to his decision is! In regard to tort essential for the next time I comment [ wagon mound no 1 ] 1.! As an error the principle that foreseeability is only compatible with UK primary legislation from 2001 - present caught. V. Stephens followed Polemis, in Victoria Laundry ( Windsor ) Ltd. v. Morts Dock and.... Learned and acute judgments and dis¬quisitions have been so anticipated to prevent inflammable material falling the! 91 at p. 85 ) to say that foreseeability ‘ goes to culpability, not to compensation. in. The earliest in point of date was smith v. London & South Western Railway Co. law Rep. 6 C.P called... Court finally came in the case of H.M.S “ Accept ”, you consent to the work... Use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering preferences...