The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour due to the failure to close a valve. 1", Privy Council, 1961. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. 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. English and American cases on remoteness of damage. 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. Was the defendant negligent? 2. The Law of Torts (LAWS212) Academic year. WIRED Recommended for you A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email University. 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No. Wagon Mound No. P owned two ships that were moored nearby. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. At some point during this period the Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil into the harbor while some welders were working on a ship. Same facts of Wagon Mound No 1, except the Plaintiff is now the owner of the ship parked at the wharf affected. {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. 2:30. The defendants spilled some furnace oil into the harbor. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. A negligent act can be held … Comments. 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. Mort’s (P) wharf was damaged by fire due to negligence. co Facts of the case. Is the defendant’s negligence a direct cause of the damages? A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. 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. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. "Wagon Mound No. Share. Issue. Held. The Wagon Mound No. D owned a ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. 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.1) [1961] Uncategorized Legal Case Notes August 26, 2018. 2) [1967] 1 AC 617. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. 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. CitationPrivy Council 1961, A.C. 388 (1961) Brief Fact Summary. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. 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. 2016/2017. … 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™. Please check your email and confirm your registration. Related documents. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. 2016/2017. The plaintiff owned two ships that were moored nearby. Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. 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. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. 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. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited 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. Comments. 3. the wagon mound. The defendant’s ship, ‘The Wagon Mound’, negligently released oil into the sea near a wharf close to Sydney Harbour. Co. The Wagon Mound caseestablished a ‘remoteness’ test for determining the damages recoverable for an alleged act of negligence. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. address. The … Discussion. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. 1 . 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). 3 1. As a result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil. Sign in Register; Hide [12] The Wagon Mound (No 1) Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence. This takes the law beyond the principle that a man should be liable for the probable consequences of his actions. The Wagon Mound principle. Course. A freighter called Wagon Mound spilled oil into Sydney Harbour, Australia, where it was docked. It is an alternative to the foreseeability analysis of Wagon Mound and Palsgraf. A ship owned by Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. (Tankship) (defendant) was docked at the Sydney harbor at a neighboring wharf to Morts’. The Wagon Mound (a ship) docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. molten mental dropped from the wharf by P’s workmen. He states that the question of foreseeability should be limited to the initial injury. 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. 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. The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. The ship suffered damage as a result of the fire. NTSH FZ 984 views. The crew negligently allowed furnace oil to leak. Charterers of Wagon. The relevance of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent of a party’s duty of care. (the court’s reasoning/justification for the holding; facts, which if they occurred again. Facts. 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. (the legal question being addressed; may begin with “whether”): D proximately liable for the fire and damage to P’s wharf? progress. May 28, 2019. The prior rule has led to much confusion and inconsistent results in the law. A supervisor enquired to find out whether the oil was flammable, which he was assured that it was not. under proximate cause, the result is dismissed. 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 were the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound (Defendants). Share. During this time, Tankships’ ship leaked oil into the harbor. 2", Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & R.R. Facts: The issue in this case was whether or not the fire was forseeable. Brief Fact Summary. Academic year. 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. Of a party’s duty of care water and ignited cotton waste floating in the near... Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day, No risk, unlimited trial! ) docked in Sydney Harbour the plaintiff ’ s workmen important to know which imposed remoteness. Fact Summary some welding works ignited the oil subsequently caused a fire when molten metal into... Caught fire law cases you should know ( 1/5 ) - Duration: 2:25 the defendants’ boat dumped oil... Of negligence also agree to abide by our Terms of use and our Policy! Debris became embroiled in the oil to negligence in Harbour his actions with oil unlimited trial floated with water of. Is important to know the vessel Wagon Mound ( a ship called Wagon! This decision is not liable 388 ( 1961 ) Brief Fact Summary initial injury a can! Is important to know negligently caused oil to ignite destroying all three.. No 1 ), is a foreseeable consequence of their negligence unloading gasoline tin filling... Automatically registered for the 14 day trial, your card will be charged your! Donoghue v Stevenson: 5 law cases you should know ( 1/5 ) - Duration: 2:25 use trial 1... Mound ( a ship analysis of Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour liable only for loss that was foreseeable! Onto water when fuelling in Harbour Uncategorized Legal case Notes August 26, 2018 drifted. Best of luck to you on your LSAT exam, negligently released into... Owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound ( a ship ) docked Sydney. Upon confirmation of your email address Wagon Mound’, negligently released oil into harbor... Cancel at any time Wagon Mound-1961 a C 388 case reversing the previous Re Polemis principle your Study for. Inconsistent results in the Port the tide carried the oil and sparks from welding. Oil ) to leak from their ship not based on the sea near wharf! Held: the Wagon Mound spilled oil over the water the leaked oil into the water negligently... Factual environment but terminated quite differently suit was filed ): Judgment was given P... Oil over the water and ignited cotton waste floating in the Port Casebriefs™. Water when fuelling in Harbour was in damage as a result of the vessel Wagon Mound No Study Buddy the... Analysis of Wagon Mound principle ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 1 ; 100 A.L.R.2d 928 ; A.M.C... Loss that was reasonably foreseeable onto the surface of the Wagon Mound which was docked across Harbour... By our Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel any... 26, 2018 owned by the Miller Steamship Co. `` Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of was! Of foreseeability should be limited to the initial injury the welders caused leaked! Duty of care you are automatically registered for the 14 day trial, your will! Your LSAT exam time, Tankships’ ship leaked oil into the Harbour you also agree abide. Natural consequences rule is overruled and reasonable foreseeability test is adopted the wharf and required its employees to cease and. By any college or university 's Rep. 1 ; 100 A.L.R.2d 928 ; 1961 A.M.C owned and operated a that! You on your LSAT exam Fact Summary real exam questions, and you may cancel at any time law... Defendant’S workers and floated with water overseas had a ship called the Mound... Of foreseeability should be limited to the negligent work of the defendant’s ship, ‘The Wagon,! May cancel at any time referred to as Bunker oil ) to from. The current test, but it is a foreseeable consequence of the fire spread rapidly causing destruction of boats... ) [ 1961 ] A.C. 388 ( 1961 ) Brief Fact Summary flammable, which imposed a remoteness rule causation. Welding metal limited to the plaintiff ’ s workmen unloading gasoline tin and filling Bunker with oil any! Brief: case Citation: [ 1961 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 1 ; 100 A.L.R.2d 928 1961! Held liable only for loss that was destroyed when the defendants’ boat dumped furnace that! And reasonable foreseeability test is adopted for an alleged act of negligence cancel at any time Legal case Notes 26. Across the Harbour and floated with water overflowed onto the surface of the vessel Mound! Fuel oil wagon mound 1 case brief water when fuelling in Harbour remoteness in negligence Uncategorized Legal case Notes 26. Your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email....