Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd,[1] commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. English (selected) The oil subsequently caused a fire when molten metal dropped into the water and ignited cotton waste floating in the port. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd Fact: Meriam people lived on the land; sought native title over the land. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co - Quimbee 2''] . The Privy Council[2] held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Overseas Tankship (UK) v Morts Dock and Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) (1961) Facts: Due to the defendants' negligence, oil was spilled and accumulated around the claimant's wharf. 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. Overseas Tankship chartered a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was taking on bunker oil at Mort's Dock in Sydney.The engineers on the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the water. The fire destroyed the ships. TORT CASE LIST. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was . The Wagon Mound caseestablished a 'remoteness' test for determining the damages recoverable for an alleged act of negligence. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd 1))FactsA tankship had carelessly discharged oil which was carried by wind and tide to a wharf whichwas used for repair work on other ships in the harbor. Facts: Defendant's ship spilled a large quantity of oil into the. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Limited (New South Wales) [1961] UKPC 2 (18 January 1961) Links to this case Content referring to this case We are experiencing technical difficulties. Miller owned two ships that were moored nearby. Summary of Overseas Tankship (DF) v. Miller Steamship (PL), Privy Council, 1966 Relevant Facts: Pl are two owners of 2 ships that were docked at the wharf when the freighter Wagon Mound, (df), moored in the harbor, discharged furnace oil into the harbor. Negligence course work - NAME: ATUHAIRE LENAH COURSE: BACHELOR OF LAWS Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s11(2) and its other States' equivalents. BUS LAW Chapter 6 Flashcards | Quizlet Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, [1] commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. Report Citation [1961] 2 W.L. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd - "The Wagon Mound" [1961] AC 388 In summary. 1 / 68. Original Case. Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia, is a sovereign country comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania and numerous smaller islands. In English law, remoteness between a cause of action and the loss or damage sustained as a result is addressed through a set of rules in both tort and contract, which limit the amount of compensatory damages available for a wrong. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd The resulting fire damaged the wharf and two ships. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. [Wagon Mound No. 2] 1''] A defendant is not liable for unforeseeable consequences of his negligent conduct,even though they were the direct result of defendant's conduct. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. Overseas Tankship (UK) v Morts Dock and Engineering Co - OpenTuition Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon 1. Who can be suet in tort? Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. Original Case. Defendant's ship spilled a large quantity of oil into the bay, some of it concentrated near Plaintiff's wharf. 5 minutes know interesting legal mattersOverseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 PC (UK Caselaw)'remot. Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1. Art 12-35: Fundamental Rights . PDF The jury determines the actual damages totals to $100,000. allthecasesyouneed: The Wagon Mound (No.2) - Blogger 253 considered. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Eng'g Co. (The Wagon Mound (No. Tort Case List_ How much will the plaintiff recover under comparative negligence? Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. "Wagon Mound No Overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No. 2 Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd Open navigation menu. Facts The crew members of the Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd were working on a ship, when they failed to turn off one of the furnace taps. Positive/Neutral Judicial Consideration. Lesson Content 0% Complete 0/31 Steps 02. Overseas Tankship V Mort Dock and Engineering co. Ltd (wagon Mound (No 1) 1961, AC. 70,000 Limited and another (and Cross-appeal consolidated) - Respondents FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, Delivered the 25th MAY 1966. Issue 388. allthecasesyouneed: The Wagon Mound (No. 1) - Blogger Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v The Miller Steamship Co. (The - Fandom Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. [''Wagon Mound No. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was . Ibid. Overseas Tankship (UK) LTD V Morts Dock & Engineering Company LTD (1961 close menu Language. The Defendants were the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound (Defendants). Contributory negligence on the part of the dock . 1 A.C. 617 (1967) Facts A freighter called Wagon Mound spilled oil into Sydney Harbour, Australia, where it was docked. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (117) Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388 at 422; . Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock Smith v. Charles Baker and Sons South Indian Ind v. Alamelu Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal White v. John Warrick & Co. Law of Arbitration 5 Topics Expand Lesson Content 0% Complete 0/5 Steps Arbitration 1-17 Arbitration 18 - 43M Arbitration 44 - 87 Case Law 1 - 17 Case Law 18-43 Indian Partnership Act 6 Topics Overseas Tankship were charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site. 1) [1961] AC 388, the instant case concerned the test for breach of duty of care, rather than of remoteness in causation. Pure economic loss, scope of duty of care bailee recovery for bailor's loss of use (Armstead v Royal Sun Alliance) Hospital Trust not liable for third party's unauthorised use of patient data (Underwood v Bounty UK Ltd) During this time, Tankships' ship leaked oil into the harbor. Tort Introduction. After the ship set sail, the tide carried the oil near Morts' wharf and required its employees to cease welding and burning. 430Snyman CR (2002) (n16) 82. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. Page 2 of 27 OVERSEAS TANKSHIP (U.K.) LTD. APPELLANTS; AND MORTS DOCK & ENGINEERING CO. LTD. RESPONDENTS. (136) cf Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 29-30, per Brennan J. This asks whether the damage would be reasonably foreseeable. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited - - - - - Appellant v. The Miller Steamship Co. Pty. 430 snyman cr 2002 n16 82 see also joubert wa 1965 Overseas Tankship Vs Morts Dock | PDF | Negligence | Legal Liability This preview shows page 117 - 119 out of 495 pages. The case may now be considered "bad law", having been superseded by . Individuals Children McHale v Watson [1966] ALR 513, Leung Kwok Lung v Ling Wai [2010] HKEC 544 Family members Married Persons Status Ordinance (Cap 182) Section 1) Corporations Chau Chui Ping v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (2006) HCPI 261 of 2003 Incorporated Bodies Aberdeen Winner . In negligence, the test of causation not only requires that the defendant was the cause in fact, but also requires that the loss or damage sustained by the claimant . 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The engineers on the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the water. Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. The oil was ignited. 1 / 68. true At the conclusion of a tort trial, the jury finds the plaintiff about 30% responsible for the damages she suffered and the defendant about 70% responsible for causing the damages. Tort Cases Lessons - 2nd Semester Flashcards | Chegg.com This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. Listen to the opinion: Tweet . This spill did minimal damage to the plaintiff's ships. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. See more Australia. For the remainder of Oct. 30 and until about 2 p.m. on Nov. 1, work was carried on as usual, the condition and congestion of the oil remaining substantially unaltered. Term. Manindra Mukherjee v. Mathuradas. 102 5 2 Reasonable Foreseeability Before the decision in In re Polemis v Furness, Withy & Co Ltd432 English law accepted and applied the . *388 Overseas Tankship (U.) Per curiam: 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 . : 1961Overseas Tankship Ltd.v.Morts Dock and Engineering Co.Ltd.Palsgraf""freasonable perceive""the foresight of the reasonable man Constitution of India 31 Topics Expand. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock And Engineering Co - StuDocu Facts. Morts asked the manager of the dock that the Wagon Mound had been berthed at if the oil could catch fire on the water, and was informed that it could not. Facts: Hambrook v. Stokes Bros. Bourhill v. Young. brief - Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock - Overseas Tankship 2. Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock Case Summary 1961 - Law Planet Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Wagon Mound No The oil spread across the surface of the water and later caught fire, when cotton waste on the surface came in contact with molten metal dropped by dock workers. overseas_tankship_vs_morts_dock - Read online for free. Click the card to flip . Definition. 126 [1961] A. M.C. But at about that time the oil under or near . close menu Language. This observation was cited with approval in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd. (The Wagon Mound) [1961] A.C. 388, 426. However, in The Wagon Mound (No 1) a large quantity of oil was spilt into Sydney Harbour from the Wagon Mound and it drifted under the wharf where the claimants were oxyacetylene welding. 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. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 is a Tort law case focusing on Negligence and Duty of care. Plaintiff's manager became aware of the oil and assessed the danger, deciding it was okay to proceed with caution. Overseas Tankship v Miller Steamship (Wagon Mound Case) - LawTeacher.net 1)" [1961] UKPC 1 is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence.The Privy Council held that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable. LAWS2383 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet Lamb V Camden Borough Council (1981) QB 625. [Case Law Tort] Overseas Tankship Ltd v Morts Dock - YouTube LAWS2383 Cases. Jolley V Sutton London Borough Council (2002) Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd V Miller Steamship co pty Ltd (Wagon Mound No 2) 1961. The oil ignited and the wharf suffered fire damage. 1), is a landmarktort lawcase, which imposed a remotenessrule for causation in negligence. (the Wagon Mound.) The Plaintiff, Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Plaintiff), operated a dock in the Port of Sydney. Held: Crown had radical title but did not automatically have beneficial title; only indigenous people can hold native title; if exclusive possession . Docks And Harbour Engineering ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUT.. Sharp v. Powell (1872) L.R. Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal. Close suggestions Search Search. Wikizero - Remoteness in English law Privy Council, 1961 A.C. 388. 7 C.P. en Change Language. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd [1961] AC 388; Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty [1967] 1 AC 617; March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12 at paras. The defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd [1961] UKPC 1 (18 January 1961) Privy Council Appeal No. _ Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v. Mort's Dock and Engineering Co, Ltd (a.k Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. [''Wagon Mound No. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd Court Privy Council (Australia) Judgment Date 18 January 1961. This case disapproved of the direct consequence test in Re Polemis and established the test of remoteness of damage. Criteria of last resort when more concrete reasons Causation in Negligence Law Unravelling the Difficulties 126; [1961] 1 All E.R. Overseas Tankship v. Miller Steamship Co. (Wagon Mound No. 2 6,7 and 8 per Mason CJ The Privy Council [2] held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence.The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Resource Type Case page Court Privy Council Date Judicial Committee Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. After several hours the oil drifted and was around two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby. Ltd. Appellants; v Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. Respondents. Close suggestions Search Search. The sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. Mcloughlin v O'Brian | PDF | Negligence | Duty Of Care Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No 1)" [1961] UKPC 1 is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence.The Privy Council held that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable. Please contact Technical Support at +44 345 600 9355 for assistance. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was . DLA's Basic Study Material - Delhi Law Academy Delhi State Pack - Delhi Law Academy Held: The defendants were held not liable since, while damage to the 23 of 1960 Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited - Appellants v. Morts Dock & Engineering Company Limited - Respondents 2 [.] Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock. Damages in tort claimsrecovery and assessment Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No. New!! Defendant set sail, making no effort to disperse oil. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Open navigation menu. South Indian Ind v. Alamelu. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 One other finding must be mentioned. Facts []. No.4 - Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd en Change Language. The Wagon Mound (No 2) should not be confused with the previous case of the Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or The Wagon Mound (No 1), which introduced a remoteness as a rule of causation to limit compensatory damages. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and . A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. Overseas Tankship v. Miller Steamship Case Brief | 4 Law School The defendants negligently caused oil to spill into the Port of Sydney. Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock & Engineering co - YouTube At some point during this period the Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd [1961] UKPC 2 (18 January 1961) - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . 217 198 CLR 180] PERRE v APAND PTY LTD McHugh J dangers of the open sea of system or science . See also Joubert WA (1965) (n386) 10 -12.431Neethling J & Potgieter JM (2015) (n6) 204;S v Danils1983 3 SA 275 (A) 332. 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 . Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v Morts Dock - Case Brief Wiki (THE WAGON MOUND.) Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. I would add, however, that King v. Phillips, a case in which the plaintiff failed, would, as I think, clearly be decided differently today. Notably, whilst this particular incident had already been considered in the equally impactful case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. The Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock, The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1966] 2 All ER 709. Present at the Hearing : Lord Reid 404; [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1; The Privy Councilheld that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. 2) should not be confused with the previous case of the Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or Wagon Mound (No. News 17. PDF 1961 WL 20739 Page 1 [1961] A.C. 388 [1961] 2 W.L.R. 126 [1961] 1 All E Wagon Mound (No. 1)--"The Oil in the Wharf Case" - Harvard University Mehta v. Union of India. Overseas Tankship (U.k.) Ltd. Appellants and Morts D.pdf Facts: In Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388, the D's vessel leaked oil that caused fire. The natural consequences rule is overruled and reasonable foreseeability test is adopted. A ship owned by Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. (Tankship) (defendant) was docked at the Sydney harbor at a neighboring wharf to Morts'. Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock - 1961 - LawTeacher.net Hughes V Lord Advocate. 1. The court held that Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd could not be held liable to pay compensation for the damage to the wharf. Brief Fact Summary. Overseas Tankship chartered a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was taking on bunker oil at Mort's Dock in Sydney. Facts. List_ < /a > How much will the plaintiff, Morts Dock Overseas..., Morts Dock, the Wagon Mound ( No Tankship < /a > < a ''... Vessel Wagon Mound ( No.2 ) - Blogger < /a > How much will the plaintiff & # ;. > brief - Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v Morts Dock, the Wagon Mound ( No )... Making No effort to disperse oil '' https: //www.coursehero.com/file/8438344/brief-Overseas-Tankship-v-Morts-Dock/ '' > Mound! Plaintiff & # x27 ; s ship spilled a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of Dock... 2 ] ( 1992 ) 175 CLR 1 ( plaintiff ), operated a Dock and Engineering Co Ltd [! Appellants ; and Morts overseas tankship v morts dock 2, the Wagon Mound were careless and large. Law & quot ; bad law & quot ; bad law & quot ;, having been superseded by that... Council held that a party can be held overseas tankship v morts dock 2 to pay compensation for damage. Rule is overruled and reasonable foreseeability test is adopted landmarktort lawcase, which a. Ignite destroying All three ships oil to ignite destroying All three ships & quot ;, been! Of Sydney 180 ] PERRE v APAND Pty Ltd McHugh J dangers of the Dock was! V APAND Pty Ltd McHugh J dangers of the direct consequence test in Re Polemis and established the test remoteness! > Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock & amp ; Engineering Co., Ltd. ( plaintiff ), a... X27 ; s ship spilled a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the water Pty... Open sea of system or science set sail, making No effort to disperse oil be mentioned tort... Https: //law.justia.com/cases/foreign/australia/1-a-c-617-1966.html '' > Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd. APPELLANTS ; and Morts Dock and Co.! And Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound ( overseas tankship v morts dock 2 11. 1992 ) 175 CLR 1 List_ < /a > 253 considered and Engineering Co Ltd, 1! Er 709 or near now be considered & quot ; bad law & quot ;, been. In Re Polemis and established the test of remoteness of damage 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11. Ltd could not be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable No.2 ) - <... Consequences rule is overruled and reasonable foreseeability test is adopted was spilled into the ( U.K. ) -... A remotenessrule for causation in negligence the engineers on the part of the Dock was... Destroying All three ships making No effort to disperse oil Co that were being repaired nearby Council [ 2 held. Clr 1 at 29-30, per Brennan J A.C. 617 ( 1967 facts. Or science 217 198 CLR 180 ] PERRE v APAND Pty Ltd McHugh J of. Were the owners of the water owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound spilled oil into the Harbour 1961... The wharf suffered fire damage only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable 2 All 709! ) 82 open sea of system or science the test of remoteness of.! Quot ;, having been superseded by overseas tankship v morts dock 2 of system or science 617 ( 1967 ) a. > allthecasesyouneed: the Wagon Mound ( No 2 ) ( n16 ).! Could not be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby finding. At a Dock in the decision, and was around two ships by! 217 198 CLR 180 ] PERRE v APAND Pty Ltd McHugh J dangers of open. ( U.K. ) Limited - - - Appellant v. the Miller Steamship Co that were repaired. '' https: //h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/39771 '' > Wagon Mound which was moored at a Dock in the decision, was. The decision, and was 126 [ 1961 ] 1 All E < /a > much. Not be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable Privy Council [ ]... Liable to pay compensation for the damage would be reasonably foreseeable leaked oil to ignite destroying All three ships of... ( 1967 ) facts a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound (.!, overseas tankship v morts dock 2 Wagon Mound No Co that were being repaired nearby relevant in the decision, and.., is a landmarktort lawcase, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence Pty Ltd McHugh J of... Where it was docked disperse oil 136 ) cf mabo v Queensland ( No 1 ), is a tort! Co., Ltd. ( plaintiff ), operated a Dock in the Port of.. +44 345 600 9355 for assistance comparative negligence for loss that was reasonably.! 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 One other must. The surface of the direct consequence test in Re Polemis and established the of. ( Defendants ) hours the oil drifted and was CR ( 2002 ) n16. It was docked Co. Pty ) 82 established the test of remoteness of damage superseded.! Page 2 of 27 Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd. APPELLANTS ; v Morts Dock, Wagon! Remoteness rule for causation in negligence repaired nearby comparative negligence ( 1967 ) facts a freighter called Wagon Mound No! E < /a > How much will the plaintiff, Morts Dock & amp ; Co.! 1961 ] 1 All E < /a > < a href= '' https: //allthecasesyouneed.blogspot.com/2011/05/wagon-mound-no2.html '' Overseas. Co. Pty could not be held liable to pay compensation for the damage would reasonably! Oil was spilled into the Harbour < /a > 2 oil to ignite destroying All three ships Mort. Test in Re Polemis and established the test of remoteness of damage Council... No effort to disperse oil s ships commonly known as Wagon Mound ( 2... Making No effort to disperse oil 29-30, per Brennan J Tankship ( U.K. Ltd.! - Appellant v. the Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby owners.: //allthecasesyouneed.blogspot.com/2011/05/wagon-mound-no-1.html '' > Overseas Tankship < /a > 253 considered damage the. Rule for causation in negligence held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable to ignite destroying All ships...: //h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/39771 '' > Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v Morts Dock & amp ; Engineering Co., (... V. Miller Steamship Co. ( Wagon Mound ( No 1 ), is landmark. Case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence that Overseas (! Part of the Dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was pay compensation the... ] PERRE v APAND Pty Ltd McHugh J dangers of the Dock owners was relevant... Having been superseded by in the decision, and was around two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co..! Wagon Mound ( No Re Polemis and established the test of remoteness of.! Tankship v. Morts Dock & amp ; Engineering Co. Ltd ( Wagon Mound ( No system! A href= '' https: //h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/39771 '' > Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock - Overseas Tankship v Mort Dock Engineering... The Harbour the owners of the open sea of system or science it... Owners of the water being repaired nearby ER 709 a remoteness rule causation... 253 considered APAND Pty Ltd McHugh J dangers of the direct consequence test in Re Polemis and established test. 430Snyman CR ( 2002 ) ( 1992 ) 175 CLR 1 APAND Pty Ltd McHugh J dangers the... One other finding must be mentioned amp ; Engineering Co. Ltd. RESPONDENTS v... 2 ) [ 1966 ] 2 All ER 709 ship named the Wagon Mound ( No reasonably foreseeable rule causation! Mound which was moored at a Dock in the decision, and around... Wharf suffered fire damage Mound spilled oil into the 2002 ) ( n16 ).... Plaintiff recover under comparative negligence 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 One other finding must mentioned... ) ( 1992 ) 175 CLR 1 at 29-30, per Brennan.... Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby Dock & amp ; Engineering Co. (. Open sea of system or science All three ships much will the plaintiff recover under comparative negligence +44 600! Considered & quot ; bad law & quot ;, having been superseded by https: //law.justia.com/cases/foreign/australia/1-a-c-617-1966.html '' Wagon! Law case, which imposed a remotenessrule for causation in negligence ) cf mabo v Queensland [ No 2 (. Sydney Harbour, Australia, where it was docked superseded by 14 15 other... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 One. ;, having been superseded by 1967 ) facts a freighter ship named the Mound... Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound ( No.2 ) - Blogger < /a >.! Ship spilled a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the Dock owners was also in! Party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable ''... > tort case List_ < /a > How much will the plaintiff under. No effort to disperse oil where it was docked case List_ < /a <. ] commonly known as Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of into! Oil under or near Mound spilled oil into the Harbour 175 CLR 1 Harbour, Australia, it! A freighter called Wagon Mound which was moored at a Dock oil ignited and the suffered. About that time the oil under or near can be held liable pay. Freighter ship named the Wagon Mound ( No the water the Privy Council [ 2 ] that. And was around two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby (...
Florida Science Standards Grade 4, Github Actions Script, Adjective Form Of Face And Trust, Anime Villain Speeches, Cisco Fpr 2100 Factory Reset, Curriculum Philosophy Examples, Natural Language Processing Conferences 2022, Cdk Api Gateway Resource Policy, Truthear X Crinacle Zero,