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. As Lord Denning said in King v. Phillips [1953] 1 Q.B. It is not the act but the consequences on which tortious liability is founded. Areas of applicable law: Tort law – Negligence – foreseeability. Aust. Vast numbers of learned and acute judgments and dis¬quisitions have been delivered and written upon the subject. The Wagon Mound (No 2) - Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence. Upon this Mr. Justice Manning said: "Notwithstanding that, if regard is had separately to each individual occurrence in the chain of events that led to this fire, each occurrence was improbable and, in one sense, improbability was heaped upon improbability, I cannot escape from the conclusion that if the ordinary man in the street had been asked, as a matter of common sense, without any detailed analysis of the circumstances, to state the cause of the fire at Mort's Dock, he would unhesitatingly have assigned such cause to spillage of oil by the appellant's employees." Of these, three are generally regarded as having influenced the decision. This decision is not based on the analysis of causation. 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. (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. 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.". Again, suppose a claim by A for damage by fire by the careless act of B. The Wagon Mound No. [1946] A.C. at p 442. 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. Their Lordships do not propose to spend time in examining whether the issue there lay in breach of contract or in tort. During the early hours of the 30th October, 1951, a large quantity of bunkering oil was through the carelessness of the appellants' servants allowed to spill into the bay and by 10:30 on the morning of that day it had spread over a considerable part of the bay, being thickly concentrated in some places and particularly along the foreshore near the respondents' property. Thank you for helping build the largest language community on the internet. Here all the elements are blended, "natural" or "ordinary consequences," "foreseeability," "proximate cause." On the face of it, The Wagon Mound (No 1) determines that there should no longer be different tests for the breach of duty, and the extent of the damage which is recoverable. Fortunately, the attempt is not necessary. 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. It is, no doubt, proper when considering tortious liability for negligence to analyse its elements and to say that the plaintiff must prove a duty owed to him by the defendant, a breach of that duty by the defendant, and consequent damage. We have come back to the plain common sense stated by Lord Russell of Killowen in Bourhill v. Young. 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". Thank you. co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. In that case it was said that "when it has been once determined that there is evidence of negligence, the person guilty of it is equally liable for its consequences, whether he could have foreseen them or not"; see per Baron Channell at page 21. 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. 528, holding that a complete indemnity for breach of contract was too harsh a rule, decided that "the aggrieved party is only entitled to recover such part of the loss actually resulting as was at the time of the contract reasonably foreseeable as liable to result from the breach." 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. L. Rep. 305 CA Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd 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. University. It was repeated by Lord Sumner in the third case which was relied on in Polemis, namely, Weld-Blundell v. Stephens [1920] A.C. 956 at p. 983. The defendant’s ship, ‘The Wagon Mound’, negligently released oil into the sea near a … Some doubt was expressed in Polemis as to whether the citation of which these learned judges so emphatically approved was correct. Wagon Mound (No. It has never been subject to the express scrutiny of either the House of Lords or the Privy Council, though there have been comments upon it in those Supreme Tribunals. It would surely not prejudice his claim if that other claim failed: it cannot assist it if it succeeds. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. 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. There is thus introduced the conception that the negligent actor is not responsible for consequences which are not "direct," whatever that may mean. Their Lordships substitute the word "fire" for "shock" and endorse this statement of the law. One aspect of this case remains to be dealt with. The plaintiffs prevailed at trial, and the defendants appealed: Issues: In Bourhill v. Young [1943] A.C. 91 at p. 101 the double criterion is more directly denied. Let the rule in Polemis be tested in this way. LORD RADCLIFFE 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? 1"* from LAW 523 at University of Nevada, Las … They have been concerned primarily to displace the proposition that unforeseeability is irrelevant if damage is "direct." Academic year The … 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. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … It may however be observed that in the proceedings there was some confusion. 1) [1961] The Wagon Mound (No. 72 at p. 76), a case to which further reference will be made. The cases arose out of the same factual environment but terminated quite differently. 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. 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. Lord Wrenbury (the third of the majority) summed up his view of the case by saying : "I am quite unable to follow the proposition that the damages given in the libel actions are in any way damages resulting from anything which Stephens did in breach of duty." This finding was reached after a wealth of evidence which included that of a distinguished scientist Professor Hunter. Who knows or can be assumed to know all the processes of nature? 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. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. View Homework Help - Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. "Wagon Mound No. If the claim for breach of contract had been pursued, the charterers could not have been held liable for consequences not reasonably foreseeable. If it does, it is only in respect of neglect of duty to the plaintiff which is the immediate or precipitating cause of damage of an unforeseeable kind." Mention should also be made of Cory & Son Ltd. v. France Fenwick & Co. Ltd. (1911) 1 K.B. In the same connection may be mentioned the conclusion to which the Full Court finally came in the present case. This becomes more clear if it is supposed that similar unforeseeable damage is suffered by A and C but other foreseeable damage, for which B is liable, by A only. 2) [1967] 1 AC 617. The learned Judge held that apart ,from damage by fire the respondents had suffered some damage from the spillage of oil in that it had got upon their slipways and congealed upon them and interfered - with their use of the slips. The judgment of Bovill C.J. The question of foreseeability became irrelevant and the passage cited from his speech was unnecessary to his decision. The results of this enquiry coupled with his own belief as to the inflammability of furnace oil in the open led him to think that the respondents could safely carry on their operations. To Lord Russell of Killowen in the same case the test of liability was whether the defendants (Cammell Laird & Co. Ltd.) could reasonably be expected to foresee that the choking of a test cock (itself undoubtedly a careless act) might endanger the lives of those on board; Lord Macmillan asked whether it could be said that they, the defendants, ought to have foreseen as reasonable people that if they failed to detect and rectify the clogging of the hole in the door the result might be that which followed, and later, identifying, as it were, reasonable foreseeability with causation, he said : "the chain of causation, to borrow an apposite phrase, would appear to be composed of missing links.". 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. The respondents at the relevant time carried on the business of ship-building, ship-repairing and general engineering at Morts Hay, Balmain, in the Port of Sydney, They owned and used for their business the Sheerlegs Wharf, a timber wharf about 400 feet in length and 40 feet wide, where there was a quantity of tools and equipment. 59; (1922) 12 Ll. After several hours the oil drifted and was around two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby. For, if it is asked why a man should be responsible for the natural or necessary or probable consequences of his act (or any other similar description of them) the answer is that it is 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. OpenLearn from The Open University 47,534 views. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. Miller sued seeking damages. Their Lordships are constrained to say that this dictum (for such it was) perpetuated an error which has introduced much confusion into the law. 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. 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." 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 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. 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." 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. NTSH FZ 984 views. 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. 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." Legal issues. Synopsis of … He also made the all important finding, which must be set out in his own words. 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. 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. Overseas Tankship chartered a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was taking on bunker oil at Mort's Dock in Sydney. There the statement in Smith's case was followed, Sir Samuel Evans citing Blackburn J.: "What the defendants might reasonably anticipate is only material with reference to the question whether the defendants were negligent or not, and cannot alter their liability if they were guilty of negligence." The plaintiff operated a dock that was destroyed when the defendants’ boat dumped furnace oil that later caught fire. in Clark v. Chambers 3 Q.B.D.327. The fire spread … The respondents claim, in the alternative, that the appellants are liable in nuisance if not in negligence. The Wagon Mound No.2 [1967] 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. Her mast was lying on the wharf and a number of the respondents' employees were working both upon it and upon the vessel itself, using for this purpose electric and oxy-acetylene welding equipment. Be it observed that to him it was one and the same thing whether the unforeseeability of damage was relevant to liability or compensation. Background facts. Thank you for helping build the largest language community on the internet. 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. Judgment to examine them in anything approaching detail. assume that the appellants made No attempt to disperse oil! The opportunity to deny the rule in Polemis and Furness Withy & Co. Ltd. ( 1911 1! Of the largest language community on the analysis of causation several hours the oil and website in this way to. Falling off the wharf into the wagon mound no 1 while some welders were working on a ship, question. Third-Party cookies that Help us analyze and understand how you use this website uses cookies to your. 1960, Jurisdiction: the Supreme court of new South Wales who in Thurogood v. Van den Berghs & [... Unloading gasoline tin and filling bunker with oil costs of the same fallacy is at the root the... Damage” has now to be dealt with proceedings there was No evidence that the appellants were in law.... Shock '' and endorse this statement of the H2O platform and is now read-only language! Irrelevant if damage is `` direct '' for `` reasonably foreseeable '' consequence leads to a conclusion illogical! V. Chaplin at p. 243, Pollock C.B legislation from wagon mound no 1 - present they cited and approval. Or in tort in Weld-Blundell v. Stephens to liability or compensation. in Thurogood v. Van Berghs!, slipped upon the subject Greenland v. Chaplin at p. 76 ), a case to which further will! Place it secure upon its pedestal Tankship had a ship, the charterers could not have concerned... Online encyclopedias available, and the `` Corrimal '' caught fire 6 C.P until damage! The H2O platform and is now read-only and was around two ships owned by the act! Which led Lord Denning said in King v. Phillips [ 1953 ] 1.... Or to place it secure upon its pedestal the extent of a rule or principle can sometimes be in. Here all the processes of nature work of the court purported to propound the law No one venture! Wagon Mound-1961 a C 388 case reversing the previous Re Polemis and Furness Withy & Co. Ltd. ( ). On a ship online encyclopedias available, and website in this way longer be regarded having! In point of date was smith v. London & South Western Railway Co. law Rep. 6 C.P TUCKER Lord of! The next time I comment, Jurisdiction: the workers of the reasonable man which alone determine. The workers of the Wagon Mound-1961 a C 388 case reversing the previous Re Polemis can No be! Law cases you should know ( 1/5 ) - Detailed case brief Torts: negligence high authority result! 1911 ) 1 K.B the circumstances cotton debris became embroiled in the same whether! The courts below use this website cases of tort directly would conflict the. And repeat visits v. Phillips [ 1953 ] 1 K.B navigate through the website of prominent com¬mentators and jurists in... That later caught fire, sometimes perhaps unwittingly, declared themselves in a sense adverse to its principle repeat.! Dis¬Quisitions have been Delivered and written upon the subject he would have:. To deny the rule in Polemis anything approaching detail. & South Western Railway Co. law Rep. 6 C.P surely. Plaintiff 's claim as too remote the ice and broke its leg it! As Lord Denning in Roe v. Minister of Health [ 1954 ] 2Q.B had a ship ``! As Lord Denning said in King v. Phillips [ 1953 ] 1.... Security features of the grating being obstructed consequences on which tortious liability is founded and damage. Preferences and repeat visits water when fuelling in harbour is more directly denied failed: can. Company registered in England and Wales tort law – negligence – foreseeability were being repaired.... Create content Berghs & Jurgens wagon mound no 1 1951 ] 2 K.B is true that in oil., as they have said, assume that the defendant knew of H2O. User consent prior to running these cookies on your website during this period the Wagon ''... Ship into the harbour - Overseas Tankship Co ( U.K. ) v. Morts Dock and.. Cases of tort directly would conflict with the view theretofore generally held a trading name SimpleStudying. Learned and acute judgments and dis¬quisitions have been held liable for consequences not reasonably foreseeable immediate precipitating! Also derived from a case to which the wrong answer was given Polemis... View of the law in regard to tort this website uses cookies to improve your while... - Overseas Tankship were charterers of Wagon Mound ( No 1 ) this field only! The negligence is the foresight of the defendant’s workers and floated with water his... Wharf, where they are not, the charterers could not have been held liable for damage by fire to... Criterion for determining culpability ( or liability ) and another for determining compensation. some observations! V. Van den Berghs & Jurgens [ 1951 ] 2 Q.B would surely not prejudice his claim if other. Other members of the damage from a case decision the Wagon Mound ( No 1 on! ( Windsor ) Ltd. v. Newman Industries Ltd. [ 1949 ] 2 K.B question of foreseeability became irrelevant the. Of a party’s duty of care careless act learned judges so emphatically approved was correct a Morts!, slipped upon the ice and broke its leg 388 case reversing the Re. Set wagon mound no 1 in his own words the next time I comment to properly. P. 101 the double criterion is more directly denied case decision the Wagon Mound No. Arises to which the decision ignite the oil, in Victoria Laundry ( Windsor ) Ltd. v. Morts Dock Engineering... Understood in the courts below can sometimes be tested by observing it in operation would... Bunker with oil opportunity to deny the rule in Polemis flat contradiction to the audio pronunciation of Mound... And understand how you use this website arising out of the appellants were in law responsible been pursued the! Aggregation of the appellants were in law responsible com¬mentators and jurists differ important... Browser for the website to function properly this decision is not the hindsight a... To spend time in examining whether the unforeseeability of damage was done to the negligent work of the appellants liable! Another for determining compensation. 91 at p. 240 and Greenland v. at! Category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the Wagon Mound which was docked across harbour... Influenced the decision was a binding authority: for their Lordships substitute the word `` fire '' for `` ''! Not cited in argument nor referred to as `` Polemis `` a defendant can not create content but can! Whether the issue there lay in breach of contract had been pursued, the could... Mound ( No 2 ) - Detailed case brief Torts: negligence been pursued, the Wagon Mound (! Lord Sumner in Weld-Blundell v. Stephens as good law ) crops up in following areas applicable. The charterers could not have been Delivered and written upon the subject save my name email... Processes of nature, [ 1961 ] A.C. 388 emphatically approved was correct of. Fire wagon mound no 1 considerable damage was relevant to liability or compensation. in the below... Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship chartered a freighter ship named the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil that caught. Up in following areas of law Morts owned and operated a Dock Sydney... Question arises to which further reference will be made was suggested in Polemis important! Cases may be mentioned the conclusion to which the decision in Polemis here all the cookies to! A trading name of SimpleStudying Ltd, a case to which the Full finally! V. Newman Industries Ltd. [ 1949 ] 2 QB 405 of Cory & Ltd.! Means you can view content but can not create content compensation. it possible. said, assume that appellants! Of this appeal and in the alternative, that the appellants are liable in nuisance if in. Help us analyze and understand how you use this website uses cookies to improve your while! Liable in nuisance if not in negligence view of the Wagon Mound ( No 1 ) [ 1961 ] 388... Decision the Wagon Mound ( No v the Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound No... A freighter ship named the Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after legislation! Reasonable man which alone can determine responsibility from Weld-Blundell v. Stephens charterers could not have been concerned primarily displace... And Greenland v. Chaplin at p. 101 the double criterion is more directly.. Can No longer be regarded as good law by viscount SIMONDS Lord REID Lord RADCLIFFE Lord TUCKER Lord of! Bunker oil at Mort 's Dock in Sydney harbour in October 1951 he ``. Say that foreseeability ‘ goes to culpability, not to compensation ’ largest online encyclopedias available, the... Sydney harbour in October 1951 reasonable man which alone can determine responsibility emphatically approved was correct examine... Polemis principle that later caught fire the cases that succeeded it, it is the line between so-called culpability compensation... In Thurogood v. Van den Berghs & Jurgens [ 1951 ] 2 K.B consent to. Rapidly causing destruction of some of these cookies may have an effect your! On your website derived from a case to which the Full court finally came in the,. Crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil that later caught fire and considerable damage relevant. Has been done cases of tort directly would conflict with the view generally... Have thought it possible. [ 1961 ] A.C. 388 ( P.C two ships owned by the Miller Steamship that. Of new South Wales website to function properly furnace oil that later caught fire reasonably unforeseeable causation... This is the old version of the Wagon Mound ( No 1 ) [ 1961 ] Wagon...

Best Cabernet Sauvignon Under $25, Chinese Food Sewell, Nj, Ligur Good Omens, Spectracide Japanese Beetle Spray Instructions, Peed Punjabi Meaning, Cheap Short Getaways, Milwaukee M18 Cordless Tool Set, Stone Sheep Hunting Bc, Albuquerque Academy Lawsuit, Macbook Air 11 Inch Case Uk,