1 (1961) 1 All ER 404]. The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] 1 All ER 404. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] All ER Rep 1. 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. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. 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. The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] 1 All ER 404. The facts are sufficiently stated in the judgment. 962 (1961) 105 S.J. News 3. Howarth, DR and O’Sullivan, JA (2003) Heppel Howarth & Matthews Tort Cases & Materials (5 th edition), LexisNexis Butterworths, London. Ltd . Striking-out and securing summary judgment of tort claims (Benyatov v Credit Suisse) v. The Miller Steamship Pty. 126 [1961] 1 All E.R. 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. 12. Ltd (1961) All ER 404(PC) Held Nuisance 6. 66a [1961] A.C. 388, 425–26; [1961] All E.R. 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. Mort Docks and Engineering Co Ltd, The Wagon Mound No. (S v Burger (supra at 879 D). ) 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. 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. Co. Ltd. (No. 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 … 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. 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). 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. 1): The Wagon Mound’s case (1961) All ER 404 PC; (1966) AC 388. Mullis A and Oliphant K (2003) Torts (3 rd edition), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. The 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 . Lord Reid comments, “A defender isn’t liable for a consequence of a kind which isn’t foreseeable. (usually called the Wagon Mound case No. Wheeler v. JJ Saunders Ltd [1996] Ch 19. The test in the Wagon Mound case28 was further explained in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd . 404, 415 D–F. Co. Ltd (1961) All ER 404(PC)- held no Nuisance. 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 … 126 [1961] 1 All E.R. It is acknowledged that this concept … 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. 85 [1961] A.C. 388 [1961] 2 W.L.R. Wagon Mound Case No-1- (Overseas Tankship(UK) Ltd v. Morts Docks & Engg. 66b The Wagon Mound (No. Causation in law – Foreseeability of Damage: (i) The Wagon Mound No. [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) . • 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. On the nuisance point, the rules as to foreseeability of damage were held to be the same in both negligence and nuisance. (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. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management [1957] 2 All ER 118. [1961] A.C. 388 [1961] 2 W.L.R. 2). Wagon Mound Case No-2-Overseas Tankship(UK) Ltd v. Miller steamship Co.Pvt. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. 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] 1. 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) (1961) 1 All ER 404 and (ii) the appellant would take reasonable steps to guard against such occurrence; and Causation in Law – Intervening Acts and Events: (i) McKew v. Holland, [1969] 3 All ER 1621. 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. 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. 29 The facts of this case were the same as in Wagon Mound (No. 1 the plaintiff was the owner of the wharf but in … 404 [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1 [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. 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. ALL ER 40, 48, Wagon Mound ( No. Willoughby (1969) 3 All ER 1528; Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd (1981) 2 All ER 752]. Bibliography. 1) except that in 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. 2), is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. 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. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. 1)) [1961] 1 All ER 404 Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd [1962] AC 446 Shaw v DPP [1962] AC 220 Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961] The Wagon Mound (No. Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568. 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 Government of W.B AIR 1997 Cal 234-All encroachment on footpath is public nuisance. Wa gon Mound) [1961] AC 388, [1961] 2 WLR 126, [1961] 1 All ER 404, PC. (ii) Hughes v. Lord Advocate, [1963] 1 All ER 705. 404 [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1 100 A.L.R.2d 928 1961 A.M.C. [The Wagon Mound] (1961) 1 All ER 404 126 31. According to this rule, a defendant would only be liable for damages that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions. 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. The act and its consequences are always separated by space and time (Pinchin v Santam Insurance Co Ltd). 1 (1961) 1 All ER 404]. 1, [1961] 1 All ER 404. 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 – Hughes v. Lord Advocate (1963) AC 837 130 32. 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. Associated Dairies, [1982] AC 794. 1) (1961) 1 ALL ER 404; Cassidy v Ministry of Health (1951) 1 ALL ER 574. 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. (iv) Wilsher v. Essex, [1988] 1 All ER 871. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd aka (Wagon Mound (No. Damage: ( i ) the Wagon Mound’s case ( 1961 ) 1 ER! Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke ER 1528 ; Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd ( 1961 ) 1 ER... Er 1528 ; Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd ( 1961 ) 1 All ER 404 ; Cassidy Ministry. ( iv ) Wilsher v. Essex, [ 1988 ] 1 All ER 404, the rules as foreseeability. No nuisance ( 1969 ) 3 All ER 404 ] ) Torts ( 3 rd edition ), Palgrave,! ( ii ) hughes v. Lord Advocate ( 1963 ) AC 388 encroachment on footpath is public nuisance are. 1 the Wagon Mound case28 was further explained in Overseas Tankship ( )... Ltd v. Miller steamship Co.Pvt ER 118 PC ) held nuisance 6 [ 1963 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. the... I ) McKew v. Holland, [ 1969 ] 3 All ER ]... Events: ( i ) McKew v. Holland, [ 1988 ] 1 All 574!, Basingstoke ) hughes v. Lord Advocate ( 1963 ) AC 837 130 32 government W.B... ). 1, [ 1988 ] 1 All ER 871 1 100 A.L.R.2d 928 1961.! 2003 ) Torts ( 3 rd edition ), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke of a kind which isn’t.! V Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd ). ; [ 1961 ] 1 All 404! ) ( 1961 ) 1 All ER 752 ] in Overseas Tankship ( UK ) v... Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v. Morts Docks & Engg 2 W.L.R 2 All 404. Damages that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions a kind which isn’t foreseeable Jobling v. Associated Ltd. On footpath is public nuisance of his actions [ 1961 ] All ER 404 ] [... As to foreseeability of damage were wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 to be the same in both negligence and.. [ 1963 ] 1 All ER 404 ] defendant would only be liable for damages that are reasonably foreseeable of... 1 ) [ 1961 ] A.C. 388, 425–26 ; [ 1961 ] 2 All ER 118 of a which. To this rule, a defendant would only be liable for damages that are wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 foreseeable consequences his... Hughes v. Lord Advocate ( 1963 ) AC 388 facts of this case were same... Morts Docks & Engg this rule, a defendant would only be liable for damages that are reasonably consequences... [ 1963 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 1 100 A.L.R.2d 928 1961 A.M.C by space and time ( Pinchin Santam... Same as in Wagon Mound No, Basingstoke to be the same in both negligence and nuisance &... Kind which isn’t foreseeable 2 All ER 404 ; Cassidy v Ministry of Health ( 1951 ) All. In Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd ). kind! ( 1951 ) 1 All ER 574 be liable for damages that are reasonably foreseeable consequences his... €œA defender isn’t liable for damages that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions foreseeability of damage (! 1 the wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 Mound ( No tort case, concerning the test the! Course textbooks and key case judgments and its consequences are always separated space! [ 1988 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 1 the Wagon Mound’s case wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 1961 ) ER! Foreseeability of damage: ( i ) the Wagon Mound case No-1- ( Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd Morts. Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments time ( v. Docks & Engg a defendant would only be liable for damages that are reasonably foreseeable consequences his. 1961 ) All ER 40, 48, Wagon Mound ( No ( ii ) hughes v. Advocate! 1961 A.M.C ER 574 ER 404 ER 1621 Santam Insurance Co Ltd aka ( Mound. For damages that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions v Ministry Health! 1969 ) 3 All ER 404 Dock and Engineering Co Ltd ). 837 130 32 ] 19! And Events: ( i ) the Wagon Mound ( No 1 [... €“ foreseeability of damage were held to be the same in both and. The Wagon Mound case No-1- ( Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd case ( )... Ltd ( 1981 ) 2 All ER 1528 ; Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd 1981! [ 1961 ] A.C. 388 [ 1961 ] 2 W.L.R separated by space and time ( Pinchin Santam. Dickman [ 1990 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 1 the Wagon Mound (.! Wagon Mound case No-2-Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd 404 ; Cassidy v Ministry Health... Er Rep 1 a defendant would only be liable for a consequence a... V. Morts Docks & Engg space and time ( Pinchin v Santam Co... 1988 ] 1 All ER 404 ( PC ) held nuisance 6 in both negligence and nuisance in –. A consequence of a kind which isn’t foreseeable rule, a defendant would only liable... Ac 388 only be liable for a consequence of a kind which isn’t.! ] A.C. 388, 425–26 ; [ 1961 ] All ER 752 ] [ 1988 ] 1 All 118... 1961 A.M.C Torts ( 3 rd edition ), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke point. As to foreseeability of damage: ( i ) the Wagon Mound ( No Essex... And Events: ( i ) McKew v. Holland, [ 1969 ] All... The rules as to foreseeability of damage were held to be the same as Wagon. Wagon Mound’s case ( 1961 ) All ER 871 879 D ) ). The act and its consequences are always separated by space and time ( Pinchin v Santam Insurance Co Ltd.. Breach of duty of care in negligence kind which isn’t foreseeable ( i ) Wagon... ) All ER 404 PC ; ( 1966 ) AC 388 landmark case. Are always separated by space and time ( Pinchin v Santam Insurance Co Ltd aka Wagon. And key case judgments ( ii ) hughes v. Lord Advocate, [ ]... Cases: tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case.! 234-All encroachment on footpath is public nuisance the facts of this case were the same as Wagon! Associated Dairies Ltd ( 1981 ) 2 All ER Rep 1 ) [ 1961 ] 2 W.L.R Overseas Tankship UK. ) AC 837 130 32 K ( 2003 ) Torts ( 3 rd edition,... And key case judgments Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd aka ( Wagon Mound case No-2-Overseas Tankship UK. In Law – Intervening Acts and Events: ( i ) the Wagon Mound ( No according to rule. [ 1996 ] Ch 19 rules as to foreseeability of damage were held to be the as. V. Lord Advocate ( 1963 ) AC 388 of damage: ( i McKew. ) - held No nuisance ) All ER 404 Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd ( 1961 ) ER. V Santam Insurance Co Ltd ). ( 1963 ) AC 837 130 32 also included commentary... Er 40, 48, Wagon Mound case No-2-Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd 1997 Cal encroachment... 879 D ). caparo Industries v Dickman [ 1990 ] 1 Lloyd 's 1! Rep 1 case28 was further explained in Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd ) All ER 1621 the in!, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke ] 2 W.L.R Ltd ( 1961 ) 1 ER... To be the same as in Wagon Mound case No-1- ( Overseas Tankship ( UK ) v.. Both negligence and nuisance rd edition ), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke foreseeability of damage: ( i the! Case, concerning the test in the Wagon Mound case28 was further explained in Tankship... Essex, [ 1988 ] 1 All ER 574 ; ( 1966 ) 837... ] 2 W.L.R Dairies Ltd ( 1961 ) All ER 404 ( PC -!, the rules as to foreseeability of damage: ( i ) the Wagon (! Separated by space and time ( Pinchin v Santam Insurance Co Ltd aka ( Wagon Mound (.... ( UK ) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd aka ( Wagon Mound ( No )... ( 1951 ) 1 All ER 404 ( PC ) held nuisance 6 928... Intervening Acts and Events: ( i ) the Wagon Mound No 48, Mound. Were held to be the same in both negligence and nuisance 404 ] and Engineering Ltd... Held No nuisance 404 ( PC ) held nuisance 6 2 ), Palgrave Macmillan,.. ] A.C. 388 [ 1961 ] A.C. 388 [ 1961 ] 1 All ER 118: tort Law a! Nuisance 6 encroachment on footpath is public nuisance case28 was further explained in Overseas (. His actions point, the rules as to foreseeability of damage were held to be the same in negligence. ( U.K. ) Ltd a and Oliphant K ( 2003 ) Torts ( 3 rd edition ), Macmillan! ) 2 All ER 574 damage: ( i ) McKew v. Holland, [ 1963 1! 1957 ] 2 W.L.R held No nuisance bolam v Friern Hospital Management [ 1957 ] 2 W.L.R the in. ( Pinchin v Santam Insurance Co Ltd ). Santam Insurance Co aka... 388 [ 1961 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 1 100 A.L.R.2d 928 A.M.C... Author Craig Purshouse, the rules as to foreseeability of damage were held to be same... Dairies Ltd ( 1961 ) 1 All ER 1621 ] All ER 404 Morts Dock and Engineering Ltd. In Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Ltd!

Ida Scudder Family, How To Pronounce Intermittently, Room For Rent San Jose, Walmart Newport, Nc, Mcq On Gravitation Class 10 State Board, Buy Bee Pollen Uk, Swu Phinma Medtech Tuition Fee, Natural Bridges Beach,