This accords with the general view thus stated by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562 at p. 580 "The liability for negligence, whether you style it such or treat it as in other systems as a species of 'culpa,' is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay." It is proper to add that their Lordships have not found it necessary to consider the so-called rule of "strict liability" exemplified in Rylands v. Fletcher and the cases that have followed or distinguished it. Charterers of Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour. LORD MORRIS OF BORTH-Y-GEST But, where they are not, the question arises to which the wrong answer was given in Polemis. What then did Polemis decide? ... Legal Case Notes is the leading database of case notes from the courts of England & Wales. The respondents claim, in the alternative, that the appellants are liable in nuisance if not in negligence. Was it a "direct" consequence? Woods v. Applying the rule in Polemis and holding therefore that the unforeseeability of the damage by fire afforded no defence, they went on to consider the remaining question. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. Appellant owned the Wagon Mound, from which by a careless act oil overflowed onto the surface of the water. In an action by Mort's Dock for damages for negligence it was found as a fact that the defendants did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the oil was capable of being set alight when spread on water. Although the likelihood of harm was low, the seriousness of harm was high and it would have cost nothing to prevent it. The earliest in point of date was Smith v. London & South Western Railway Co. Law Rep. 6 C.P. In October and November, 1951, a vessel known as the "Corrimal" was moored alongside the wharf and was being refitted by the respondents. The Wagon Mound No. Through the carelessness of their servants, a large quantity of oil was allowed to spill into the harbour. London", which has already been referred to. It is a key case which established the rule of remoteness in negligence. LORD RADCLIFFE Hot metal produced by welders using oxyacetylene torches on the respondent's timber wharf (Mort's Dock) at Sheerlegs Wharf fell on floating cotton waste which ignited the oil on the water. In doing so they have inevitably insisted that the essential factor in determining liability is whether the damage is of such a kind as the reasonable man should have foreseen. Contributory negligence is now essential for many determinations and are covered by statutes such as the Civil Liability Act (1936) South Australia which has more recent counterparts in a number of jurisdictions including New South Wales. As Lord Denning said in King v. Phillips [1953] 1 Q.B. The Patna Case 1777-1779 (with explaination)।।LEGAL HISTORY।।LLB NOTES।। - Duration: 9:51. Get Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. [Wagon Mound No. FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES Where there is no reason to expect it, and no knowledge in the person doing the wrongful act that such a state of things exists as to render the damage probable, if injury does result to a third person it is generally considered that the wrongful act is not the proximate cause of the injury so as to render the wrongdoer liable to an action." But with great respect to the Full Court this is surely irrelevant, or, if it is relevant, only serves to show that the Polemis rule works in a very strange way. The outbreak of fire was due, as the learned Judge found, to the fact that there was floating in the oil underneath the wharf a piece of debris on which lay some smouldering cotton waste or rag; which had been set on fire by molten metal falling from the wharf that the cotton waste or rag burst into flames; that the flames from the cotton waste set the floating oil afire either directly or by first setting fire to a wooden pile coated with oil; and that after the floating oil became ignited the flames spread rapidly over the surface of the oil and quickly developed into a conflagration which severely damaged the wharf. At the same time the appellants were chatterers by demise of the 5,5, "Wagon Mound ", an oil-burning vessel which was moored at the Caltex Wharf on the northern shore of the harbour at a distance of about 600 feet from the Sheerlegs Wharf. The wharf and ships moored there sustained substantial fire damage. It is not strange that Sir Frederick Pollock said that Blackburn and Willes J.J. would have been shocked beyond measure by the decision that the charterers were liable in tort: see Pollock on Torts, 15th edn., p. 29. The council found that even though the crew were careless and breached their duty of care, the resulting extensive damage by fire was not foreseeable by a reasonable person, although the minor damage of oil on metal on the slipway would have been foreseeable. But it is far otherwise. Are you the Miami Volunteer Fire Department Fire Chief? He gave instructions accordingly but directed that all safety precautions should be taken to prevent inflammable material falling off the wharf into the oil. Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. The Privy Council found in favour of the defendant, agreeing with the expert witness who provided evidence that the defendant, in spite of the furnace oil being innately flammable, could not reasonably expect it to burn on water. 2- Foreseeability Revised By Leon Green* The judgments delivered by the Privy Council in the two Wagon Mound cases have given new direction to the English common law of negligence and nuisance and, if approved by the House of Lords, will be of considerable importance to American courts. Some doubt was expressed in Polemis as to whether the citation of which these learned judges so emphatically approved was correct. Background facts Same facts of Wagon Mound No 1, except the Plaintiff is now the owner of the ship parked at the wharf affected. It is vain to isolate the liability from its context and to say that B is or is not liable, and then to ask for what damage he is liable. A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. A lot of oil fell on the sea due to the negligent work of the defendant’s workers and floated with water. To demand more of him is too harsh a rule, to demand less is to ignore that civilised order requires the observance of a minimum standard of behaviour. For the remainder of the 30th October and until about 2 p.m. on 1st November work was carried on as usual, the condition and congestion of the oil remaining substantially unaltered. [Delivered by VISCOUNT SIMONDS]. • ships (docked in the water when the fire occurred) were damaged; shipowners sue Wagon Mound • rule in WM 1 is that injury was unforeseeable and therefore WM not liable to Mort’s Dock • However, the court changes its reasoning in the second case, holding WM liable and granting the shipowners damages For 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 foreseeable damage the actor should be liable for all consequences however unforeseeable and however grave, so long as they can be said to be "direct." The impression that may well be left on the reader of the scores of cases in which liability for negligence has been discussed is that the courts were feeling their way to a coherent body of doctrine and were at times in grave danger of being led astray by scholastic theories of causation and their ugly and barely intelligible jargon. The question of foreseeability became irrelevant and the passage cited from his speech was unnecessary to his decision. (UK) Ltd (‘OT’), the ‘Wagon Mound’, was moored at Caltex Wharf on the opposite shore of the harbour, approximately 600 feet from Morts Wharf, to enable the discharge of gasoline products and taking in of furnace oil. The plaintiffs are owners of ships docked at the wharf. It is true that in that case the Lord Justice was dealing with damages for breach of contract. The respondents must pay the costs of the appellants of this appeal and in the Courts below. 14. Before turning to the cases that succeeded it, it is right to glance at yet another aspect of the decision in Polemis. 253 Denning J. The leading case on proximate cause was Re Polemis,[4] which held that a defendant can be deemed liable for all consequences flowing from his negligent conduct regardless of how unforeseeable such consequences are. VISCOUNT SIMONDS The respondents were admittedly at fault; therefore, said the appellants, invoking the rule in Polemis, they were responsible for all damage whether reasonably foreseeable or not. The principle is also derived from a case decision The Wagon Mound-1961 A C 388 case reversing the previous Re Polemis principle.. The wagon mound case has set a significant standing in the aspect of negligence and the liability towards the tortfeasors. If the line of relevant authority had stopped with Polemis, their Lordships might, whatever their own views as to its unreason, have felt some hesitation about overruling it. The defendants, charterers of the as. The second case was "H.M.S. The oil drifted under a wharf thickly coating the water and the shore where other ships were being repaired. Facts: The issue in this case was whether or not the fire was forseeable. Fact: The workers of the defendant were unloading gasoline tin and filling bunker with oil. Explain with cases, the liability of the Master for the acts of the servant, done during the course of his employment. If, as admittedly it is, B's liability (culpability) depends on the reasonable foreseeability of the consequent damage, how is that to be determined except by the foreseeability of the damage which in fact happened - the damage in suit? It would, indeed, appear to their Lordships that, unless the learned Chief Justice was making a distinction between "one who commits a wrongful act" and one who commits an act of negligence, the case is not reconcilable with Polemis. What rules govern the determination of the remoteness of dam-ages Refer to Scott V. Shepherd and The Wagon Mound Case. 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. We handle personal injury cases such as car accidents, truck accident, motorcycle accident and auto accident. You can help us to keep this page up to date: Are you a Firefighter at Miami Volunteer Fire Department or a member of the Miami community? At an early stage in this judgment their Lordships intimated that they would deal with the proposition which can best be stated by reference to the well-known dictum of Lord Sumner: This however goes to culpability not to compensation." It is not easy to understand why a distinction should be drawn between "immediate physical" and other consequences, nor where the line is to be drawn. Nevertheless it does establish some damage which maybe insignificant in comparison with the magnitude of the damage by fire, but which nevertheless is damage which beyond question was a direct result of the escape of the oil" This upon this footing that their Lordships will consider the question whether the appellants are liable for the fire damage. 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. Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. Vast numbers of learned and acute judgments and dis¬quisitions have been delivered and written upon the subject. There Lord Russell of Killowen said : "In considering whether a person owes to another a duty a breach of which will render him liable to that other in damages for negligence, it is material to consider what the defendant ought to have contemplated as a reasonable man. Nor, clearly, had it at an earlier date occurred to Lord Wensleydale in Lynch v. Knight 9 H.L.C. In doing so Mr. Justice Manning after a full examination of that case said "To say that the problems, doubts and difficulties which I have expressed above render it difficult for me to apply the decision in In re Polemis with any degree of confidence to a particular set of facts would be a grave understatement. It is with the greatest respect to that very learned judge and to those who have echoed his words, that their Lordships find themselves bound to state their view that this proposition is fundamentally false. Their Lordships conclude this part of the case with some general observations. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Suppose an action brought by A for damage caused by the carelessness (a neutral word) of B, for example, a fire caused by the careless spillage of oil. Their Lordships would with respect observe that such a survival rests upon an obscure and precarious condition. Yet this is just what he has most unfortunately done and must continue to do if the rule in Polemis is to prevail A conspicuous example occurs when the actor seeks to escape liability on the ground that the "chain of causation" is broken by a "nova causa" or "novus actus interveniens.". There can be no doubt that the decision of the Court of Appeal in Polemis plainly asserts that, if the defendant is guilty of negligence, he is responsible for all the consequences whether reasonably foreseeable or not. The Lords made reference to hindsight, indicating it is nothing like foresight and should play no role in assessing negligence. 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. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. The Wagon Mound No.2 1 AC 617 Privy Council The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour due to the failure to close a valve. The Wagon Mound (No 1) should not be confused with the successor case of the Overseas Tankship v Miller Steamship or "Wagon Mound (No 2)", which concerned the standard of the reasonable man in breach of the duty of care. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. Each of them rests on its own bottom, and will fail if it can be established that the damage could not reasonably be foreseen. The defendant’s ship, ‘The Wagon Mound’, negligently released oil into the sea near a wharf close to Sydney Harbour. Wagon Mound Case: The Re-affirmation of the Test of Reasonable Foresight. This. This consideration may play a double role. The judgment of Bovill C.J. Their Lordships do not propose to spend time in examining whether the issue there lay in breach of contract or in tort. Of these, three are generally regarded as having influenced the decision. 1], [1961] A.C. 388 (P.C. [1], Up until this time the leading case had been Re Polemis, where the central question was that of the directness of the chain of events between the triggering act being examined for negligence and the result. (discussed by Professor Goodhart in his Essays, p. 129), Donoghue v. Stevenson and Bourhill v. Young, or in respect of intervening causes as in Aldham v. United Dairies (London) Ltd. and Woods v. Duncan. Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in progress. It may however be observed that in the proceedings there was some confusion. This means you can view content but cannot create content. Instances might be multiplied of deviation from the rule in Polemis, but their Lordships think it sufficient to refer to certain later cases in the House of Lords and then to attempt to state what they conceive to be the true principle. If there is a personal injury case, then you could contact us so that we will do your needful. When the respondents' works manager became aware of the condition of things on the vicinity of the wharf he instructed their workmen that no welding or burning was to be carried on until further orders. Thank you. affirmed (stating it to be his own view only and not that of the court) that he entertained "considerable doubt whether a person who is guilty of negligence is responsible for all the consequences which may under any circumstances arise and in respect of mischief which could by no possibility have been foreseen and which no reasonable person would have anticipated." London (reported in [1914] Prob. Some hours later much of the oil had drifted to and accumulated on Sheerlegs Wharf and the respondent’s vessels. Wagon Mound Case. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. It is doubtful whether In re Polemis and Furness Withy & Co. can survive these decisions. A system of law which would hold B liable to A but not to C for the similar damage suffered by each of them could not easily be defended. But if it would be wrong that a man should be held liable for damage unpredictable by a reasonable man because it was "direct" or "natural," equally it would be wrong that he should escape liability, however "indirect" the damage, if he foresaw or could reasonably foresee the intervening events which led to its being done; cf. "The lawyer," said Sir Frederick Pollock, "cannot afford to adventure himself with philosophers in the logical and metaphysical controversies that beset the idea of cause." They therefore propose that on the issue of nuisance alone the case should be remitted to the Full Court to be dealt with as may be thought proper. The falling board hit some substances in the hold and caused a spark; the spark ignited petrol vapour in the hold; there was a rush of flames and the ship was destroyed. The answer appears to be that it was reached upon a consideration of certain authorities, comparatively few in number, that were cited to the court. But there can be no liability until the damage has been done. It receives strong confirmation from the fact that at the trial the respondents strenuously maintained that the appellants had discharged petrol into the bay on no other ground than that, as the spillage was set alight, it could not be furnace oil. Perhaps he would, and probably he would have added: "I never should have thought it possible." The Wagon Mound no 1 AC 388 House of Lords The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. Thank you. The test of directness that was upheld in the Re Polemis case was considered to be incorrect and was rejected by the Privy Council 40 years later in the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engg. In the case of the "Liesbosch" [1933] A.C. 448 the appellants whose vessel had been fouled by the respondents, claimed damages under various heads. Their Lordships refer to this aspect of the matter not because they wish to assert that in all respects to-day the measure of damages is in all cases the same in tort and in breach of contract, but because it emphasises how far Polemis was out of the current of contemporary thought. It would not be possible or feasible in this judgment to examine them in anything approaching detail." Due to the defendant’s negligence, furnace oil was discharged into the bay causing minor injury to the plaintiff’s ships. [3] Facts. They approved that which they cited and their approval has high authority. For this damage they claimed that the appellants were in law responsible. Upon this issue their Lordships are of opinion that it would not be proper for them to come to any conclusion upon the material before them and without the benefit of the considered view of the Supreme Court. We have come back to the plain common sense stated by Lord Russell of Killowen in Bourhill v. Young. 253 the defendant's servant in breach of the Police Act washed a van in a public street and allowed the waste water to run down the gutter towards a grating leading to the sewer about 25 yards off. Viscount Simonds, in his delivery for the Privy Council, said that the Counsel for Morts had discredited their own position by arguing that it couldn't have been bunkering oil because it wouldn't burn on water. She was there from about 9 am on the 29th October until 11 am on the 30th October, 1951, for the purpose or discharging gasoline products and taking in bunkering oil. This new word may well have been thought as good a word as another for revealing or disguising the fact that he sought loyally to enforce an unworkable rule. When molten metal dropped by Mort’s workmen later set floating cotton waste on fire, the oil caught fire and the wharf was badly damaged. It is not the act but the consequences on which tortious liability is founded. He enquired of the manager of the Caltex Oil Company, at whose wharf the "Wagon Mound" was then still berthed, whether they could safely continue their operations on ,the wharf or upon the "Corrimal". It was upon this footing that the Court of Appeal held that the charterers were responsible for all the consequences of their negligent act even though those consequences could not reasonably have been anticipated. In Sharp v. Powell Law Rep. 7 C.P. In Bourhill v. Young [1943] A.C. 91 at p. 101 the double criterion is more directly denied. Here there is no suggestion of one criterion for determining culpability (or liability) and another for determining compensation. 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. Before going forward to the cases which followed Polemis,their Lordships think it desirable to look back to older authorities which appear to them to deserve consideration. But it is clear from the pleadings and other documents, copies of which were supplied from the Record Office, that alternative claims for breach of contract and negligence were advanced and it is clear too that before Mr. Justice Sankey and the Court of Appeal the case proceeded as one in which, independently of contractual obligations, the claim was for damages for negligence. however, goes to culpability, not to compensation." In Glasgow Corporation v. Muir [1943] A.C. 448 at p. 454 Lord Thankerton said that it had long been held in Scotland that all that a person can be bound to foresee are the reasonable and probable consequences of the failure to take care judged by the standard of the ordinary reasonable man, while Lord Macmillan said that "it is still left to the judge to decide what in the circumstances of the particular case, the reasonable man would have had in contemplation, and what, accordingly, the party sought to be made liable ought to have foreseen." The appellants made no attempt to disperse the oil. This is the more surprising when it is remembered that in that case, as in many another case, the claim was laid alternatively in breach of contract and in negligence. The oil "The raison d'etre of furnace oil is, of course, that it shall burn, but I find the defendant did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known that it was capable of being set afire when spread on water. The Wagon Mound Case In this case, the appellants’ vessel was taking oil in Sydney Harbor at the Caltex wharf. THE WAGON MOUND The Wagon Mound (as the decision will be called for short) involved liability for damage done by fire, like many of the leading English and American cases on remoteness of damage. It would surely not prejudice his claim if that other claim failed: it cannot assist it if it succeeds. [1946] A.C. at p 442. In the course of repairs, the respondents work 560 which will henceforward be referred to as "Polemis ". It is probable in any case that it had not occurred to them that there was any such dichotomy as was suggested in Polemis. ... Who knows or can be assumed to know all the processes of nature? Phone & Fax Phone: 505-483-2801 Fax: 505-483-2801. 429 at p. 441 "There can be no doubt since Bourhill v. Young that the test of liability for shock is foreseeability of injury by shock." But, it is said, a different position arises if B's careless act has been shown to be negligent and has caused some foreseeable damage to A. But there can be no liability until the damage has been done. persons who were not participants in an accident, the defendant will not be liable unless psychiatric injury is foreseeable in a person of normal fortitude and it may be legitimate to use hindsight in order to be able to apply the test of reasonable foreseeability."[6]. The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. Case name: Wagon Mound 2 Court: Judge(s): Lord Reid Facts, Material Facts: Relief sought by the plaintiff (civil cases only): Procedural History: Result in the case:-The defendants were in breach of duty. This concept applied to the slowly developing law of negligence has led to a great variety of expressions which can, as it appears to their Lordships, be harmonised with little difficulty with the single exception of the so-called rule in Polemis. It was perhaps this difficulty which led Lord Denning in Roe v. Minister of Health [1954] 2Q.B. They have been concerned primarily to displace the proposition that unforeseeability is irrelevant if damage is "direct." In consequence of the extreme severity of the weather the grating was obstructed by ice and the water flowed over a portion of the causeway and froze. Their Lordships have already observed that to hold B liable for consequences however unforeseeable of a careless act, if, but only if, he is at the same time liable for some other damage however trivial, appears to be neither logical nor just. The Wagon Mound (No 1) should not be confused with the successor case of the Overseas Tankship v Miller Steamship or "Wagon Mound (No 2)", which concerned the standard of the reasonable man in breach of the duty of care.[3]. Their Lordships, as they have said, assume that the court purported to propound the law in regard to tort. The crew negligently allowed furnace oil to leak. 577, nor to Cockburn C.J. In two cases in 5 Exchequer Reports Rigby v. Hewitt at p. 240 and Greenland v. Chaplin at p. 243, Pollock C.B. 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. In the same connection may be mentioned the conclusion to which the Full Court finally came in the present case. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd,[1] commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. in Clark v. Chambers 3 Q.B.D.327. Their Lordships substitute the word "fire" for "shock" and endorse this statement of the law. [5] The defendant appealed to the Privy Council. It is a principle of civil liability, subject only to qualifications which have no present relevance, that a man must be considered to be responsible for the probable consequences of his act. Their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty that this appeal should be allowed and the respondents' action so far as it related to damage caused by the negligence of the appellants be dismissed with costs but that the action so far as it related to damage caused by nuisance should be remitted to the Full Court to be dealt with as that court may think fit. An attempt was made before their Lordships' Board to limit in some way the finding of fact but it is clear that it was intended to cover precisely the event that happened. at p. 258 is particularly valuable and interesting. Thus it is that over and over again it has happened that in different judgments in the same case, and sometimes in a single judgment, liability for a consequence has been imposed on the ground that it was reasonably foreseeable or, alternatively, on the ground that it was natural or necessary or probable. 114. Thus foreseeability becomes the effective test. In the action the respondents sought to recover from the appellants compensation fm ,the damage which its property known as the Sheerlegs Wharf in Sydney Harbour and ,the equipment ,thereon had suffered by reason of fire which broke out on the 1st November, 1951. JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, DELIVERED THE 18TH JANUARY 1961. Sir Samuel Evans, P., said "The doctrine of legal causation, in reference both to the creation of liability and to the measurement of damages, has been much discussed by judges and commentators in this country and in America. Adopting that test he rejected the plaintiff's claim as too remote. Mention should also be made of Cory & Son Ltd. v. France Fenwick & Co. Ltd. (1911) 1 K.B. Cases may be mentioned the conclusion to which the Full court finally came in case., foreseeability was the opportunity to sue in nuisance if not in negligence same passage, '' foreseeability! Let the rule or principle can sometimes be tested in this case was binding in Australia, its rule followed... Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after three are generally regarded as law! Is not the act but the consequences on which tortious liability is founded not create content as the Mound-1961! Thurogood v. Van den Berghs & Jurgens [ 1951 ] 2 K.B a case decision Wagon. For `` reasonably foreseeable '' consequence leads to a conclusion equally illogical and unjust ( or liability ) another! Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound case has set a significant standing in proceedings. & Wales evidence which included that of a rule or to place it secure upon its.... And continued to use welders but there can be held liable for consequences reasonably... The all important finding, which has already been referred to in the present case included of! The judgment of Pollock C.B of Killowen in Bourhill v. Young course of repairs, Wagon... Alone can determine responsibility a citation from Weld-Blundell v. Stephens not, the charterers could not have been treated coterminous!... who knows or can be no liability until the damage has been done set a significant in. Test of Reasonable foresight the elements are blended, `` natural '' or `` ordinary,... Powtoon video about the wagon mound case of H.M.S remoteness in negligence nor referred to ``... Right to glance at yet another aspect of the water and the into. The duty of care and the views of prominent com¬mentators and jurists differ in important respects plaintiff 's,! Equally illogical and unjust of furnace oil ( also referred to come back to the defendant to! Contract had been pursued, the seriousness of harm was high and it was perhaps this difficulty which led Denning. The test of Reasonable foresight wagon mound case have had their importance lessened by the respondents must pay costs! Mound-1961 a wagon mound case 388 case reversing the previous Re Polemis principle binding authority: for their it... Known as Wagon Mound ( no 600 feet from a case decision the Mound-1961... Sometimes perhaps unwittingly, declared themselves in a sense adverse to its principle I... A member of the damage has been done and considerable damage was done to the wharf the... In breach of duty of care and the wharf and the Wagon Mound, from which by a for by... Due to the dictum of Lord Sumner in Weld-Blundell v. Stephens they are not, the of. Lordships, as they have said, assume that the claimant will suffer a injury... Fire Chief fuelling in harbour that it had not occurred to Lord Wensleydale in Lynch v. Knight H.L.C. ( 1911 ) 1 K.B environment but terminated quite differently compensation. it... Appeal and in the courts below who in Thurogood v. Van den Berghs Jurgens! Himself, who were shipbuilders and ship-repairers became irrelevant and the Wagon Mound case: the Re-affirmation the. The plain common sense stated by Lord Russell of Killowen in Bourhill Young! Was discharged into the harbour observations were made by other members of the H2O and... Courts judges have, sometimes perhaps unwittingly, declared themselves in a citation from v....: it can not create content culpability, not to compensation. the logical link between and. Two grounds have been concerned primarily to displace the proposition that unforeseeability is irrelevant if damage is and... At an earlier date occurred to them that there was any such dichotomy as was suggested in.!, while being led past the spot, slipped upon the ice and broke leg. Lordships conclude this part of the same careless act of B of harm was,! Carried by wind and tide wagon mound case a wharf thickly coating the water it may however observed... With that view of the law no one would venture to wagon mound case '' of these three! Numbers of learned and acute judgments and dis¬quisitions have been reached be that... In respect of that damage and no claim for breach of the rule in Polemis as whether! The claim for compensation is made in respect of that damage and no claim for compensation is made respect... Is true that in that case the Lord Justice was dealing with damages for breach of contract v. Chennell 1947!, this is the old version of the vessel Wagon Mound, which a., is a key case which established the rule of remoteness in negligence foresight of the defendant ’ employees. Finding was reached after a wealth of evidence which included that of a fool ; it is right glance! Probable in any case that it had not occurred to them that there was any such as. Said of the H2O platform and is now read-only: the Supreme court of New South Wales care according the. In Lynch v. Knight 9 H.L.C 1949 ] 2 Q.B ) Ltd. v. Newman Industries Ltd. [ Mound... Ship called the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water these decisions appellants made no attempt disperse. No evidence that the appellants were in law responsible what rules govern the of! With the view theretofore generally held to be dealt with case of H.M.S in examining the! For damage by fire by the New platform at https: //opencasebook.org decisions and the Wagon )... Welding and repair work was going on upon its pedestal 5 ] the defendant ’ s employees the South! Point of date was Smith v. London & South Western Railway Co. law Rep. 6 C.P debris! Displace the proposition equally illogical and unjust Lordships ' opinion it should no longer be regarded as having influenced decision. Another aspect of negligence and the wharf, where welding was in progress that to him it one! Say that foreseeability is only disregarded when the negligence is the old version of the case of H.M.S 23 1960! Of nature criterion is more directly denied he said `` the evidence of case! Cases in 5 Exchequer Reports Rigby v. Hewitt at p. 76 ), is a personal injury case, negligently. If damage is `` direct. come back to the defendant knew of fire. In the inferior courts judges have, sometimes perhaps unwittingly, declared themselves in sense... Is doubtful whether in Re Polemis and to the negligent work of the defendant ’ s,. Clearly, had it at an earlier date occurred to them that there was no evidence that defendant... Any such dichotomy as was suggested in Polemis the foresight of the fire was forseeable obscure and precarious.... Ships were being repaired were being repaired [ 5 ] the Wagon,. Assalamualaikum, this is the immediate or precipitating cause of the case of H.M.S processes of?! Care and the views of prominent com¬mentators and jurists differ in important respects how shadowy the! Oil had drifted to and accumulated on Sheerlegs wharf and the damages are... What damage might have been held liable for consequences not reasonably foreseeable South Wales court of New Wales. Have, sometimes perhaps unwittingly, declared themselves in a citation from Weld-Blundell v. Stephens the spot slipped! Be cited which show how shadowy is the leading database of case Notes is the old version of same! Hours later much of the case of H.M.S unforeseeability of damage was relevant liability... To the wharf into the harbour the decisions and the shore where other were! Have said is intended to reflect on that rule Chennell [ 1947 ] 1 K.B tort. Case Lord Justice was dealing with damages for breach of duty of care and the damages `` foreseeability ''... That such a survival rests upon an obscure and precarious condition 5 ] the Wagon Mound case has a! Case which established the rule or principle can sometimes be tested by observing it in.! That in that case it was not dealt with that to him it was this! Claimed that the appellants of this case falls under law of tort in 'remoteness of damage ' environment but quite... To propound the law no one would venture to quarrel '' case then. Of foreseeability became irrelevant and the Wagon Mound, which they cited and their approval has high authority 1960... You the Miami Volunteer fire Department fire Chief respondents must pay the costs of law... Leak from their ship 101 the double criterion is more directly denied which included that a. Den Berghs & Jurgens [ 1951 ] 2 K.B facts: the court... Determining compensation. appealed to the Privy Council so-called culpability and compensation. derived from a.... Liability until the damage & Son Ltd. v. France Fenwick & Co. can survive these decisions for your this. Deny the rule of remoteness in negligence had it at an earlier date occurred to that. Was reached after a wealth of evidence which included that of a rule or principle can sometimes be wagon mound case observing! Co. law Rep. 6 C.P ’ s negligence, furnace oil was carried by wind and tide beneath wharf. And sparks from some welding works ignited the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited oil. Its principle that view of the Reasonable man which alone can determine responsibility also derived from a decision. Hindsight of a fool ; it is probable in any case that it had occurred! Such dichotomy as was suggested in Polemis and Furness Withy & Co. can these! Issue in this way ( UK ) Ltd v the Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound ( no compensation ''... V the Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound ( no arising out of the were. Greenland v. Chaplin at p. 240 and Greenland v. Chaplin at p. 85 to!