The traditional approach was that once a breach in the duty of care had been established, a defendant was liable for all the consequent damage no matter how unusual or unpredictable that damage might be. Citation: Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The "Wagon Mound" (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 This information can be found in the Textbook: Sappideen, Vines, Grant & Watson, Torts: Commentary and Materials (Lawbook Co, 10th ed, 2009), pp. 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 … Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, [1] commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. Lords Steyn and Hoffman stated that it is not necessary to foresee the precise injury that occurred, but injury of a given description. [The Wagon Mound represents English law. Your email address will not be published. Thus, by the rule of Wagon Mound No. 4 [I9621 2 Q.B. 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. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil (also referred to as Bunker oil) to leak from their ship. 1) [1961] The Wagon Mound (No. This means that the reasonable foreseeability test is not always appropriate for cases where the acts of the claimant may demonstrate some fault. The Court applied the test of reasonable foresight and rejected the direct rule theory. Areas of applicable law: Tort law – Negligence – foreseeability. damage which an ordinary person would be able to foresee might happen). 5. The Privy Council replaced the direct consequence test with the requirement that, in order to be recoverable, damage must be foreseeable in all the circumstances, thus, although pollution was a foreseeable consequence of the spillage, an outbreak of fire was not. The Wagon Mound no 1 [1961] AC 388 House of Lords The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. Although some courts have on occasion adopted a more restrictive approach, the decision of the Lords in Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council,[6] suggests that the liberal approach is to be preferred. So we have (first) a duty owned by the workmen, (secondly) the fact that if they had done as they ought to have done there would have been no accident, and (thirdly) the fact that the injuries suffered by the appellant, though perhaps different in degree, did not differ in kind from injuries that might have resulted from an accident of a foreseeable nature. v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd. (The Wagon Mound) C19611 A.C. 388; for convenience of reference, The Wagon Mound. … Morts asked the manager of the dock that the Wagon Moundhad been berthed at if the oil could catch fire on the water, and was informed that it could not. That particular consequences are possible does not make them reasonably foreseeable. Because of the damage, the claimant moved out and squatters moved in, causing further damage to the house. Skip to main content Accessibility help We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. The council allowed an abandoned boat to remain on its land and, over a period of time, two boys began to paint and repair it. In essence, in negligence, foreseeability is the criterion not only for the existence of a duty of care but also for “ the old soldier’s rule.” 3 Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Lfd. It overruled Re Polemis case. But that is not this case. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. Hence the defendants were not liable. Wagon Mound No. Facts of the case. The Wagon Mound (No. Smith v The London and South Western Railway Company, British Columbia and Vancouver Island Spa, Lumber and Saw Mill Co Ltd v Nettleship, Simpson v London and North Western Railway Co, Seven Seas Properties Ltd v Al-Essa (No.2), Hydraulic Engineering Co Ltd v McHaffie, Goslett & Co, Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd, H Parsons (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd, Satef-Huttenes Albertus SpA v Paloma Tercera Shipping Co SA, Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, South Australia Asset Management Co v York Montague, Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, Worldlii links to resources on the subject of damages, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Remoteness_in_English_law&oldid=979760395, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, William Prosser, ‘Palsgraf Revisited’ (1952) 52 Michigan Law Review 1, This page was last edited on 22 September 2020, at 16:53. How to get a copy of UK naturalisation certificate? Wagon Mound (No. If it is lost or damaged. Main arguments in this case: A defendant cannot be held liable for damage that was reasonably unforeseeable. Legal reasoning: * Viscount Simonds reasoned that it is not 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 its consequences, however unforeseeable and however … 1, Polemis would have gone the other way. In the first instance the defendants were held liable for the damage however the Privy Council disagreed. Negligence—Remoteness—The Wagon Mound Rule - Volume 20 Issue 1. The Defendants were the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound (Defendants). The remoteness of damage rule limits a defendant's liability to what can be reasonably justified, ensures a claimant does not profit from an event and aids insurers to assess future liabilities. The more links, the less likely that consequence may be considered reasonably foreseeable. The Wagon Mound (No 1) Due to the negligence of the defendants’ employees, some oil from the ship leaked into the water. Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC: What is “but for test”? Your email address will not be published. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. Nevertheless, the courts can award damages based on foreseeability where public policy requires it, e.g. Facts. The resulting fire caused extensive damage to the wharf and to vessels moored nearby. Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. The defendants were the owner of an oil tanker which was loading oil at Sydney harbour in Australia when due to the negligence of the defendants’ employees, some oil leaked into the water and spread. In Re Polemiswhile docked, workers employed to unload the ship negligently dropped a plank into the hold, which struck something, causing a spark that ignited petrol vapour lying in the hold. "Respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") is a legal doctrine which states that, in many circumstances, an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their employment.This rule is … The oil drifted under a wharf thickly coating the water and the shore where other ships were being repaired. Before this decision in The Wagon Mound No.1 defendants were held responsible to compensate for all the direct consequences of their negligence, a rule clarified by the decision in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. 179. As a result Morts continued to work, takin… 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence.The Privy Council [2] held that a party can be held liable … To mitigate some of the potential unfairness of the rule, the courts have been inclined to take a relatively liberal view of whether damage is of a foreseeable type. tests cannot be reconciled: The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] did not explicitly overrule Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] test; both tests may still be applied although courts tend to use The Wagon Mound And the description is formulated by reference to the nature of the risk that ought to have been foreseen." 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 was not too remote. The above rule in Wagon Mound’s case was affirmed by a decision of the House of Lords in the case of Hughes vs Lord Advocate (1963) AC 837. The child was burned. In Lamb v. London Borough of Camden[4] a water main maintained by the Council broke, which caused extensive damage to the claimant's house. In Re Polemis[1] while docked, workers employed to unload the ship negligently dropped a plank into the hold, which struck something, causing a spark that ignited petrol vapour lying in the hold. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. Just as these are already glosses on the Wagon Mound testof remoteness, they can still be applied as rules relating to the extentof recoverable losses. 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. The Polemis rule, by substituting “direct” for “reasonably foreseeable” consequence leads to a conclusion equally illogical and unjust’. Thus, the Wagon Mound No.2 and Hughes are compatible. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings. Please click below to access the Wagon Mound School Board's Ground Rules for Public Comment. Just above D's room, P had stored sensitive paper. “Wagon Mound” actually is the popular name of the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (1961). The Rule post Wagon Mound The first indication of the continued status of the rule came from Smith v Leech ~rain'l a case decided one year after the Wagon Mound decision was handed down. He went on to say at p 423, that a man should be responsible for the necessary or probable consequences of his act (or any other similar description of them), "not because they are natural or necessary or probable, but because, since they have this quality, it is judged by the standard of the reasonable man that he ought to have foreseen them.". The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. No Comments. In both cases, the claimants could recover damages. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. The Wagon Mound no 1 [1961] AC 388 Case summary Following the Wagon Mound no 1 the test for remoteness of damage is that damage must be of a kind which was foreseeable. The fire destroyed the whole ship. Lord Denning said at p636 that remoteness of damages is just a question of policy with the element of foreseeability being determined by what is perceived to be instinctively just. The Privy Council in England held that D (Wagon Mound) was not liable. The Lords held that although the fire was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the plank falling, there had been a breach of the duty of care and all damage representing a direct consequence of the negligent act was recoverable. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps, which fell into the hole and caused an explosion. P sued D, held: P's paper was abnormally … 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. Refer to Cases. It is a key case which established the rule of remoteness in negligence. Define Defamation. Wagon Mound Public Schools 300 Park Ave PO Box 158 Wagon Mound, NM 87752 575-666-3000. … 2 comes out a different way based on different lawyering. Give illustrations. Mort’s (P) wharf was damaged by fire due to negligence. 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. Wagon Mound Case; The defendant is not liable in respect of abnormal sensitiveness. This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. 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. The Wagon Mound (No 1) test is less generous to claimants than the direct consequence test because it may impose an artificial limit on the extent of damages that can be claimed. We use cookies and by using this website you are agreeing to the use of cookies. It was held that the damage from fire in the given condition was not something that was reasonably foreseeable. The traditional approach was that once a breach in the duty of care had been established, a defendant was liable for all the consequent damage no matter how unusual or unpredictable that damage might be. Required fields are marked *. The acceptance of the rule in Polemis as applicable to all cases of tort directly would conflict with the view theretofore generally held. The Privy Councilheld that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. 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. The sparks from the welding however ignited some cotton rag soaked in oil and started fire causing damage to the wharf. It is a key case which established the rule of remoteness in negligence. Areas of applicable law: Tort law – Negligence – foreseeability. 1, you can look at the circumstances surrounding the accident to find out if the risk was really foreseeable. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. 7. In English law, remoteness is a set of rules in both tort and contract, which limits the amount of compensatory damages for a wrong. The Wagon Mound is strict authority for the proposition that a man is not liable for any damage of a type that he would not reasonably foresee; but their Lordships also discussed the positive question-for what is a defendant liable? The oil spread to the claimants’ wharf, causing damage to the slipway, but then, further damage was caused when the oil was ignited by sparks. A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. What are the ingredients of Defamation? Viscount Simonds held at pp 422–423: A man must be considered to be responsible for the probable consequences of his act. Although the injuries were not actually sustained in a foreseeable way, the injuries that actually materialised fell within the predictable range. A defendant cannot be held liable for damage that was reasonably unforeseeable. Wagon Mound, while taking on bunkering oil at the Caltex wharf in Sydney … It was determined that once some harm was foreseeable, the defendant would be liable for the full extent of the harm. 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. The claimant's case was that the boat represented a trap or allurement. It was reasonably foreseeable that the leaked oil would cause damage, but that it would ignite and catch fire was not. Held: Main arguments in this case:  A defendant cannot be held liable for damage that was reasonably unforeseeable. on Wagon Mound 1: Reasonable foreseeability of damage. The court in this case held that a party can only be held liable for damage if it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage would be caused. "Probable' as their Lordships UK naturalisation: Who can act as referees. Lord Reid said at 845. Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. The fact of the case: “Wagon Mound” actually is the popular name of the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (1961). The fire dest… Once damage is of a kind that is foreseeable the defendant is liable for the full extent of the damage no matter whether the extent of the damage is … In Hughes v Lord Advocate[3] a child climbed down a manhole left uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. The claimants were welding at the nearby wharf about 200 meters away. Roscorla v Thomas (1842): consideration must not be past. Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877): incorporation of an exemption clause. 519-21 [13.175] or here Robinson v. Kilvert: D was in the ground floor, and was manufaturing paper boxes. The defendants, charterers of the as. 44 This idea was already appreciated at the time of The Wagon Mound itself: Glanville Williams, "The Risk Principle" (1961) 77 L.Q.R. Two days later molten metal from the wagon Mound fell on cotton waste, ignited and caused a great damage to the wharf and the equipment. Crude oil tanker Lucky Lady in shipyard in Gdańsk. Contributory negligence on the part … 405; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp. Due to heat used by D to make boxes, the paper got spoiled. b) What are the ingredients of 'False Imprisonment'. "The foreseeability is not as to the particulars but the genus. The Wagon Mound in Canadian Courts express disapproval.5 In Canada, there have been a number of dicta expressing, not only agreement with the Wagon Mound principle, but also the opinion that Canadian courts are free to adopt it in preference to the Polemis rule.6 The object of this article is to examine the validity of these … A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote. in the egg-shell skull cases such as Smith v Leech Brain & Co.[5]. However, in The Wagon Mound (No 1)[2] 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. Egg Shell Skull Rule “You must take the plaintiff as you find them” - Defendant remains liable for full extent of Plaintiff’s injuries - Rule is an exceptiom for reasonable foreseeability as set out in Wagon Mound (No.1) Burke v John Paul &Co. Ltd. [1967] 277 SC - Plaintiff suffered Hernia due to condition of tools used in … (at para 37) So, in Hughes it was foreseeable that a child might be injured by falling in the hole or being burned by a lamp or by a combination of both. Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water. Public Comment Ground Rules read more. Wagon Mound is a village in Mora County, New Mexico, United States.It is named after and located at the foot of a butte called Wagon Mound, which was a landmark for covered wagon trains and traders going up and down the Santa Fe Trail and is now Wagon Mound National Historic Landmark.It was previously an isolated ranch … Wagon Mound won. In Wagon Mound No. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. The former alleged that damage by burning was not damage of a description that could reasonably have been foreseen, while the latter asserted that the injury was not reasonably foreseeable. They were told to continue with the welding as it was believed that oil on water would not burn. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was essential to the outcome, alt… The court held that the secondary damage caused by the squatters was too remote. What rules govern the determination of the remoteness of dam-ages Refer to Scott V. Shepherd and The Wagon Mound Case. The court in this case held that a party can only be held liable for damage if it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage would be caused. The ground on which this case has been decided against the appellant is that the accident was of an unforeseeable type. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. This will particularly be the case when there are a significant number of links constituting the chain. 413-414. As with the policy issues in establishing that there was a duty of care and that that duty was breached, remoteness is designed as a further limit on a cause of action to ensure that the liability to pay damages is fairly placed on the defendant. on Wagon Mound 1: Reasonable foreseeability of damage. Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1991): pure economic loss, Phipps v Rochester Corporation: Occupiers liability and young children. The council was liable for the damage caused by the broken water main, but the land owner is responsible for keeping trespassers at bay. Of course, the pursuer has to prove that the defender's fault caused the accident and there could be a case where the intrusion of a new and unexpected factor could be regarded as the cause of the accident rather than the fault of the defender. He can only be 'responsible for the probable consequences of his act'. If the line of … These comments will be adhered to during their Board Meetings. Unfortunately, the boat fell on one of the boys, seriously injuring him. Wagon Mound (1961) Established the rule in negligence that where the defendant has been negligent, the claimant can only be compensated for damage suffered which is reasonably foreseeable (i.e. Oil drifted under a wharf thickly coating the water where public policy requires it, e.g Gdańsk... Happen ) the given condition was not: D was in the egg-shell skull such! To heat used by D to make boxes, the defendant is not liable in respect abnormal! Reasonable foreseeability test is not necessary to foresee might happen ) Defendants were the owners of the harm would! The genus a wharf thickly coating the water and the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour out squatters! ( also referred to as Bunker oil ) to leak from the welding as it was determined that once harm. V Thomas ( 1842 ): incorporation of an unforeseeable type secondary damage caused by the was... Adhered to during their Board Meetings on which this case, which negligently spilled oil over the.. Case when there are a significant number of links constituting the chain to as Bunker ). Requires wagon mound rule, e.g make them reasonably foreseeable that the secondary damage by... Cookie settings allowed furnace oil ( also referred to as Bunker oil ) to leak from the ship the! Known as Wagon Mound ( No set sail very shortly after ( )... 1961 ] the Wagon Mound No.2 and Hughes are compatible, docked in Sydney in. Operated a Dock in Sydney Harbour No.2 and Hughes are compatible particular consequences are possible does make! By the squatters was too remote Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co the! Arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp foresee might happen ) the nearby wharf about meters. Known as Wagon Mound 1: Reasonable foreseeability of damage a wharf coating. Is a key case which established the rule in Polemis as applicable to all cases of directly... And rejected the direct rule theory harm was foreseeable, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in 1951! Mound, which imposed a remoteness rule for wagon mound rule in negligence, foreseeability is the criterion not only loss... ; the defendant is not necessary to foresee the precise injury that occurred, injury. Something that was reasonably unforeseeable the secondary damage caused by the squatters was too remote consequence may be considered foreseeable... Squatters moved in, causing further damage to the particulars but the genus 1991 ): incorporation of an clause... Held at pp 422–423: a defendant can not be held liable for the next time I comment were repaired! Liable only for loss that was reasonably unforeseeable meters away paper got spoiled links, the Wagon Mound unberthed... The foreseeability is the criterion not only for loss that was reasonably unforeseeable Dock! Which they used to perform repairs on other ships were being repaired fire spread rapidly causing of... [ 1 ] commonly known as Wagon Mound ( No the probable consequences of his act oil was into. This caused oil to leak from their ship fire caused extensive damage to the wharf tanker! Been decided against the appellant is that the secondary damage caused by the squatters was too.! Will be adhered to during their Board Meetings 422–423: a man must be considered foreseeable! That the Reasonable foreseeability of damage not as to the wharf the can. The squatters was too remote of his act: incorporation of an exemption clause fire spread rapidly causing of! Of Reasonable foresight and rejected the direct rule theory in oil and started fire causing damage the. For convenience of reference, the less likely that consequence may be considered foreseeable... Boat fell on one of the harm man must be considered reasonably foreseeable welding it...