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

Gro-sure Smart Lawn Seed, Believe It In Japanese Naruto, Data Science Internship Programs, San Jose Condos For Rent, Genetics Project Ideas For Middle School, Hot Wheels Loop Track, Nama Shahabiyah Yang Dijamin Masuk Surga, Dynamic Efficiency Balances,