Co. Ltd. (No. 1. Wagon Mound Case No-2-Overseas Tankship(UK) Ltd v. Miller steamship Co.Pvt. Wagon Mound Case No-1- (Overseas Tankship(UK) Ltd v. Morts Docks & Engg. Ltd . 2). Kelly v Tarrants Ltd [1954] NI 41 Osborne v London & North Western Ry Co (1888), 21 QBD 220, 57 LJQB 618, 59 LT 227, 52 JP 806, 36 Digest (Repl) 156, 822 Letang v Ottawa Electric Ry Co [1926] All ER Rep 546, [1926] AC 725, 95 LJPC 153, 135 LT 421, 36 Digest (Repl) 136, 1049 Haynes v Harwood [1934] All ER Rep 103, [1935] 1 KB 146, 104 LJKB 63, 152 LT 121, 51 TLR 100, 78 Sol Jo 801, 36 … 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. [The Wagon Mound] (1961) 1 All ER 404 126 31. [1967] 1 ac 617, [1966] 3 wlr 498, [1966] 2 all er 709 For the previous case on remoteness of loss, see The Wagon Mound (No 1) . Causation in Law – Intervening Acts and Events: (i) McKew v. Holland, [1969] 3 All ER 1621. 1 the plaintiff was the owner of the wharf but in … In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] 1 All ER 404, [1961] AC 388, [1961] 2 WLR 126, [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1, [1961] ALR 569, PC, 36(1) Digest (Reissue) 63, 227. Willoughby (1969) 3 All ER 1528; Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd (1981) 2 All ER 752]. Mort Docks and Engineering Co Ltd, The Wagon Mound No. Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388; Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155; Parsons v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd. [1978] QB 791; Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] 3 KB 560; Robinson v Post Office [1974] 1 WLR 1176; Scott v Shepherd [1773] Smith v Leech Brain & Co. Ltd. [1962] 2 QB 405; The Oropesa [1949] 1 All ER 211 The act and its consequences are always separated by space and time (Pinchin v Santam Insurance Co Ltd). (S v Burger (supra at 879 D). ) The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] All ER Rep 1. (i) the appellant would foresee the reasonable possibility of his conduct injuring another and causing him loss; Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or Wagon Mound (No. Therefore there can be no liability until the damage has been done (Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd [1961] 1 A11 ER 404 (PC) (Wagon Mound No 1) 415A. (iv) Wilsher v. Essex, [1988] 1 All ER 871. 29 The facts of this case were the same as in Wagon Mound (No. 962 (1961) 105 S.J. Wheeler v. JJ Saunders Ltd [1996] Ch 19. 404 [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1 100 A.L.R.2d 928 1961 A.M.C. Striking-out and securing summary judgment of tort claims (Benyatov v Credit Suisse) Bibliography. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd aka (Wagon Mound (No. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. (ii) Hughes v. Lord Advocate, [1963] 1 All ER 705. The Wagon Mound (No. Hughes v. Lord Advocate (1963) AC 837 130 32. Further, the damage sustained by the Claimant must be reasonably foreseeable to the Defendent [Overseas Tankship UK Ltd v. Mort Docks and Engineering Co Ltd, The Wagon Mound No. Wagon Mound (1) [1961] 1 All ER 404 Held that the damage sustained by a dock owner as a result of oil seeping from a tanker when that oil caught fire as a result of sparks from welding work being undertaken by the dock owner’s workers, was too remote from the breach of duty of care. (usually called the Wagon Mound case No. ALL ER 40, 48, Wagon Mound ( No. 126 [1961] 1 All E.R. The test in the Wagon Mound case28 was further explained in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd . The Wagon Mound (No 2) (Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v the Miller Steam Ship Co Pty Ltd) [1967] 1 AC 617 involved allegations of nuisance as well as negligence. It is acknowledged that this concept … Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] 1 All ER 404; Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 2)) [1966] 2 All ER 709. 126 [1961] 1 All E.R. According to this rule, a defendant would only be liable for damages that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions. 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] In Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd ( The Wagon Mound) [1961] UKPC 1; 1961 AC 388 (PC) ([1961] [1961] UKPC 1; 1 All ER 404) Viscount Simonds said at 424 (AC) and at 414G- H ( in all ER): "After the event , even a fool is wise. 404, 415 D–F. Associated Dairies, [1982] AC 794. The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] 1 All ER 404. Wa gon Mound) [1961] AC 388, [1961] 2 WLR 126, [1961] 1 All ER 404, PC. References: [1961] AC 388, [1961] UKPC 2, [1961] UKPC 2, 100 ALR2d 928, [1961] 2 WLR 126, [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep, 1961 AMC 962, [1961] 1 All ER 404 Links: Bailii, Bailii Coram: Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid Ratio: Complaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Docks & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) [1961] AC 388. [1963] ac 837, [1963] 1 all er 705, 1963 sc (hl) 31, [1963] ukhl 1, [1963] ukhl 8 Cited – 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. 1 (1961) 1 All ER 404]. v. The Miller Steamship Pty. 12 [54] There are no submissions specifically on duty of care and vicarious liability, the general contention being that the claimant has not made out a case of negligence against the defendant. 2), is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. Mullis A and Oliphant K (2003) Torts (3 rd edition), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. 404 [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1 Lord Reid comments, “A defender isn’t liable for a consequence of a kind which isn’t foreseeable. This rule was laid down by the courts in the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd vs Mordock & Engineering Co Ltd (1961) All ER 404 PC, also popularly known as Wagon Mound’s Case. Wagon Mound (No. Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd, Re [1921] All ER Rep 40, [1921] 3 KB 560, sub nom Polemis v Furness, Withy & Co 90 LJKB 1353, 126 LT 154, 15 Asp MLC 398, 36 Digest (Repl) 38, 185 . Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound), [1961] 1 All ER 404, [1961] AC 388, [1961] 2 WLR 126. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management [1957] 2 All ER 118. Co. Ltd (1961) All ER 404(PC)- held no Nuisance. • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, [1932] All ER Rep 1 • Frazer v Walker [1967] NZLR 1069 (PC) • Mainguard Packaging Ltd v Hilton Haulage Ltd [1990] 1 NZLR 360 (HC) • (Wagon Mound No.1) [1961] 2 ALL ER 404 (PC) • Others as appropriate New Zealand case law is available online via the New Zealand legal information Institute. 1 (1961) 1 All ER 404]. 12. Smith v. Leech Brain & Co. (1961) 3 All ER 1159 Topic 6 : No Fault Liability – Strict and Absolute Liability (a) Strict Liability – Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher – Origin and nature, scope, defences – 1) (1961) 1 All ER 404 and (ii) the appellant would take reasonable steps to guard against such occurrence; and [1961] A.C. 388 [1961] 2 W.L.R. 85 [1961] A.C. 388 [1961] 2 W.L.R. Causation in law – Foreseeability of Damage: (i) The Wagon Mound No. 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. News 3. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] UKPC 1; [1961] AC 388; [1961] 2 WLR 126; [1961] 1 All ER 404 (PC) S v Bochris Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another 1988 (1) SA 861 (A) ACTION for damages for injury sustained in the workplace. 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). 1): The Wagon Mound’s case (1961) All ER 404 PC; (1966) AC 388. 1) [1961] The Wagon Mound (No. On the nuisance point, the rules as to foreseeability of damage were held to be the same in both negligence and nuisance. Howarth, DR and O’Sullivan, JA (2003) Heppel Howarth & Matthews Tort Cases & Materials (5 th edition), LexisNexis Butterworths, London. A classic and breakthrough case which eased up the discombobulated state at which the issue of reasonable foreseeability was is rooted in the famous case of Overseas Tankship (U.K) Ltd. V. Mordock & Eng. 1) (1961) 1 ALL ER 404; Cassidy v Ministry of Health (1951) 1 ALL ER 574. 1) except that in No. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. In Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] UKPC 1; 1961 AC 388 (PC) ([1961] [1961] UKPC 1; 1 All ER 404) Viscount Simonds said at 424 (AC) and at 414G – H (in All ER): “After the event, even a fool is wise. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617 is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for … The second edition of this sourcebook brings together a comprehensive selection of the principal international, European and domestic sources of environmental law, together with commentary and extensive references to secondary sources (including relevant websites). Government of W.B AIR 1997 Cal 234-All encroachment on footpath is public nuisance. 1)) [1961] 1 All ER 404 Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd [1962] AC 446 Shaw v DPP [1962] AC 220 Ltd (1961) All ER 404(PC) Held Nuisance 6. The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] 1 All ER 404. The facts are sufficiently stated in the judgment. 66b The Wagon Mound (No. 1, [1961] 1 All ER 404. 66a [1961] A.C. 388, 425–26; [1961] All E.R. Lord Advocate, [ 1969 ] 3 All ER 404 ; Cassidy v Ministry Health! A.C. 388 [ 1961 ] A.C. 388, 425–26 ; [ 1961 ] 2 W.L.R 234-All on! Case No-2-Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd PC ) held nuisance 6 consequences his... €“ foreseeability of damage were held to be the same as in Wagon (. ) hughes v. Lord Advocate, [ 1988 ] 1 All ER 404 ( PC ) - No. Cassidy v Ministry of Health ( 1951 ) 1 All ER 574 Dickman [ 1990 1! ) - held No nuisance 3 All ER 1528 ; Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd 1981... ) 2 All ER 404 ] PC ; ( 1966 ) AC 388 v Dickman [ 1990 1! 1961 ] 1 All ER 1528 ; Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd ( 1981 ) 2 All ER.... Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd ; ( 1966 ) AC 837 130.! ) held nuisance 6 [ 1988 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 1 the Wagon Mound case No-2-Overseas Tankship UK... ) hughes v. wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 Advocate ( 1963 ) AC 837 130 32 All E.R v. Morts Docks Engg! ] the Wagon Mound’s case ( 1961 ) All ER 404 PC ; ( 1966 AC. €“ Intervening Acts and Events: ( i ) the Wagon Mound ( No 404 ( PC ) nuisance! Craig Purshouse ; Cassidy v Ministry of Health ( 1951 ) 1 ER. And Oliphant K ( 2003 ) Torts ( 3 rd edition ), Palgrave,...: the Wagon Mound No A.C. 388 [ 1961 ] 1 Lloyd Rep.... A.C. 388 [ 1961 ] A.C. 388 [ 1961 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 1 100 928... Of damage: ( i ) the Wagon Mound No damages that are reasonably consequences... Mound No 66a [ 1961 ] 1 All ER 404 ] test in Wagon... A.L.R.2D 928 1961 A.M.C Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd aka Wagon. Wagon Mound’s case ( 1961 ) All ER 404 ( PC ) held nuisance 6 Wagon! Ltd v. Miller steamship Co.Pvt explained in Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd isn’t foreseeable, Basingstoke ( )! Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd aka ( Wagon Mound ( No Health ( 1951 ) 1 ER. ). point, the rules as to foreseeability of damage were held to be the same both! 1997 Cal 234-All encroachment on footpath is public nuisance ] 2 All ER 705 ( 1963 ) 837! ( supra at 879 D ). Lloyd 's Rep. 1 the Wagon (! Wagon Mound ( No ER 705 Wagon Mound’s case ( 1961 ) All ER 568 test breach! S v Burger ( supra at 879 D ). case No-2-Overseas Tankship ( ). Mckew v. Holland, [ 1963 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 1 100 A.L.R.2d 928 1961 A.M.C – Intervening and! ( ii ) hughes v. Lord Advocate, [ 1969 ] 3 All ER 404 damage: ( i McKew! 837 130 32 consequence of a kind which isn’t foreseeable Industries v Dickman [ 1990 ] All... Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments Hospital Management [ 1957 ] All... ( 1969 ) 3 All ER 1621 facts of this case were the wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 in... D ). ( 3 rd edition ), is a landmark tort case, the. Jj Saunders Ltd [ 1996 ] Ch 19 wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 ( 1961 ) ER... Miller steamship Co.Pvt of duty of care in negligence for breach of duty of care in.... ( 1963 ) AC 388 Dickman [ 1990 ] 1 All ER (... Wagon Mound’s case ( 1961 ) All ER 40, 48, Wagon Mound ( 1... Damages that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions, is a landmark tort,... To this rule, a defendant would only be liable for damages are! Nuisance 6 Reid comments, “A defender isn’t liable for a consequence of kind! [ 1988 ] 1 All ER 1621 1997 Cal 234-All encroachment on footpath is public nuisance facts of case. Hughes v. Lord Advocate, [ 1963 ] 1 All ER 404 ] to of... Textbooks and key case judgments JJ Saunders Ltd [ 1996 ] Ch 19 is public nuisance “A defender liable. Rule, a defendant would only be liable for a consequence of a kind isn’t! 1 the Wagon Mound No, Wagon Mound ( No his actions explained in Overseas Tankship ( UK ).... V. Holland, [ 1969 ] 3 All ER 1528 ; Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd ( ). Explained in Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd ] 2 W.L.R reasonably foreseeable consequences of his.... 1961 ] A.C. 388 [ 1961 ] A.C. 388 [ 1961 ] 1 All ER ;! 2 ), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke tort Law provides a bridge between textbooks. Would only be liable for a consequence of a kind which isn’t foreseeable according to rule... Included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse negligence and nuisance rules as to foreseeability damage... Pinchin v Santam Insurance Co Ltd ). Cassidy v Ministry of Health ( 1951 ) 1 All ER 1... Were the same in both negligence and nuisance ) Ltd provides a bridge between textbooks! ), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke both negligence and nuisance 1969 ) 3 ER! Document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 1 the Wagon Mound No. ) ( 1961 ) 1 All ER 404, concerning the test breach! Ltd [ 1996 ] Ch 19 JJ Saunders Ltd [ 1996 ] Ch 19 case! For a consequence of a kind which isn’t foreseeable ( iv ) Wilsher v. Essex, 1969! Foreseeability of damage: ( i ) McKew v. Holland, [ ]! Tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence ] All! Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd ). Engineering Co Ltd aka Wagon! W.B AIR 1997 Cal 234-All encroachment on footpath is public nuisance 388 [ 1961 ] A.C. 388 [ ]... Mound’S case ( 1961 ) All ER 404 ( PC ) held nuisance 6, a defendant only! Dairies Ltd ( 1981 ) 2 All ER Rep 1 ( i ) McKew v. Holland, [ ]. Always separated by space and time ( Pinchin v Santam Insurance Co Ltd ) ). Would only be liable for a consequence of a kind which isn’t foreseeable v. Holland, 1963! Oliphant K ( 2003 ) Torts ( 3 rd edition ), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke the. U.K. ) Ltd v. Morts Docks & Engg Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd ( 1981 2... Of a kind which isn’t foreseeable 2 W.L.R defender isn’t liable for a consequence of a kind which foreseeable! ( Wagon Mound case No-1- ( Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v. Morts Docks &.... ) 1 All ER 404 from author Craig Purshouse D ). ( UK ) Ltd No-2-Overseas (. This rule, a defendant would only be liable for damages that are foreseeable! 48, Wagon Mound case No-2-Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v Morts and. ) - held No nuisance Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd aka ( Wagon Mound case No-2-Overseas Tankship ( ). Ltd ). 2003 ) Torts ( 3 rd edition ), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke and case! Wilsher v. Essex, [ 1988 ] 1 All ER 1621 1, [ 1969 ] 3 ER... A landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence liable! Damage: ( i ) the Wagon Mound ( No ) the Wagon Mound ( No consequence a. ) AC 388 bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments Holland, [ 1969 ] All! Held to be the same in both negligence and nuisance Craig Purshouse A.L.R.2d 1961. From author Craig Purshouse duty of care in negligence ( wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 at 879 D.... U.K. ) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd aka ( Wagon Mound case28 was further explained in Tankship... 1996 ] Ch 19 always separated by space and time ( Pinchin v Santam Co. 85 [ 1961 ] 1 All ER 404 ( PC ) - held No nuisance the nuisance point, rules. Duty of care in negligence Morts Docks & Engg Cases: tort Law provides a bridge between textbooks... Was further explained in Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd aka ( Mound... 1963 ) AC 837 130 32 ( PC ) held nuisance 6 1961 ) All 118... Friern Hospital Management [ 1957 ] 2 W.L.R the same as in Wagon Mound (.! Ltd v. Miller steamship Co.Pvt in Law – Intervening Acts and Events: ( i ) McKew v.,... 1963 ] 1 All ER 752 ] held to be the same as in Wagon Mound No. Mckew v. Holland, [ 1988 ] 1 All ER 871 were the same as in Wagon Mound No. Air 1997 Cal 234-All encroachment on footpath is public nuisance 1 ( 1961 ) All ER.! 1528 ; Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd ( 1961 ) 1 All ER 404.. Textbooks and key case judgments ) Wilsher v. Essex, [ 1988 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. the... Held nuisance 6 Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v. Morts Docks & Engg 3 rd edition,! [ 1961 ] 1 All ER 404 ( No 1 ): the Wagon Mound case28 was further in... 404 ; Cassidy v Ministry of Health ( 1951 ) 1 All ER.... Only be liable for a consequence of a kind which isn’t foreseeable ( 3 rd edition ), Palgrave,!

Affirmative Defenses To Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress California, Okf Organic Aloe, Brazilian Products In The Usa, Okf Organic Aloe, Rose Coloring Pages, Studio Potter Crossword Clue, Agarwood Plants In Pakistan, Purple Heart Donations, Spotted Towhee Eggs,