wagon mound rule

“ the old soldier’s rule.” 3 Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Lfd. The resulting fire caused extensive damage to the wharf and to vessels moored nearby. The Privy Councilheld that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Although the injuries were not actually sustained in a foreseeable way, the injuries that actually materialised fell within the predictable range. 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 … The Polemis rule, by substituting “direct” for “reasonably foreseeable” consequence leads to a conclusion equally illogical and unjust’. 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. 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. Give illustrations. 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. A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. He can only be 'responsible for the probable consequences of his act'. 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). They were told to continue with the welding as it was believed that oil on water would not burn. 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. Lord Reid said at 845. (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. Facts of the case. 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. 1) [1961] The Wagon Mound (No. In this case, there was a construction work being done by post office workers on the road. 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. 44 This idea was already appreciated at the time of The Wagon Mound itself: Glanville Williams, "The Risk Principle" (1961) 77 L.Q.R. 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. The ground on which this case has been decided against the appellant is that the accident was of an unforeseeable type. Just above D's room, P had stored sensitive paper. These comments will be adhered to during their Board Meetings. v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd. (The Wagon Mound) C19611 A.C. 388; for convenience of reference, The Wagon Mound. If the line of … The claimants were welding at the nearby wharf about 200 meters away. 413-414. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. 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 … 405; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp. Robinson v. Kilvert: D was in the ground floor, and was manufaturing paper boxes. Main arguments in this case:  A defendant cannot be held liable for damage that was reasonably unforeseeable. Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC: What is “but for test”? The Privy Council in England held that D (Wagon Mound) was not liable. The Wagon Mound (No. 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.". In the first instance the defendants were held liable for the damage however the Privy Council disagreed. Held: The council was liable for the damage caused by the broken water main, but the land owner is responsible for keeping trespassers at bay. Negligence—Remoteness—The Wagon Mound Rule - Volume 20 Issue 1. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings. 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. That particular consequences are possible does not make them reasonably foreseeable. The court held that the secondary damage caused by the squatters was too remote. 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. 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. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, [1] commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. A defendant cannot be held liable for damage that was reasonably unforeseeable. The child was burned. We use cookies and by using this website you are agreeing to the use of cookies. UK naturalisation: Who can act as referees. in the egg-shell skull cases such as Smith v Leech Brain & Co.[5]. The acceptance of the rule in Polemis as applicable to all cases of tort directly would conflict with the view theretofore generally held. Wagon Mound Case; The defendant is not liable in respect of abnormal sensitiveness. The Wagon Mound (No 1) Due to the negligence of the defendants’ employees, some oil from the ship leaked into the water. Please click below to access the Wagon Mound School Board's Ground Rules for Public Comment. It is a key case which established the rule of remoteness in negligence. 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 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. But that is not this case. 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 … … It was reasonably foreseeable that the leaked oil would cause damage, but that it would ignite and catch fire was not. 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. Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877): incorporation of an exemption clause. 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. Wagon Mound won. 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. 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. 4 [I9621 2 Q.B. 1, Polemis would have gone the other way. 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. The claimant's case was that the boat represented a trap or allurement. on Wagon Mound 1: Reasonable foreseeability of damage. The sparks from the welding however ignited some cotton rag soaked in oil and started fire causing damage to the wharf. 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. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. What are the ingredients of Defamation? damage which an ordinary person would be able to foresee might happen). 179. As a result Morts continued to work, takin… 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 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 fire dest… Facts. 5. 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. Due to heat used by D to make boxes, the paper got spoiled. Roscorla v Thomas (1842): consideration must not be past. In English law, remoteness is a set of rules in both tort and contract, which limits the amount of compensatory damages for a wrong. 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 … In both cases, the claimants could recover damages. Contributory negligence on the part … 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. 1, you can look at the circumstances surrounding the accident to find out if the risk was really foreseeable. 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. on Wagon Mound 1: Reasonable foreseeability of damage. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. 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. 6. a) Define and distinguish assault from Battery. 7. Thus, by the rule of Wagon Mound No. No Comments. Wagon Mound (No. “Wagon Mound” actually is the popular name of the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (1961). 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 Wagon Mound No. And the description is formulated by reference to the nature of the risk that ought to have been foreseen." 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. Areas of applicable law: Tort law – Negligence – foreseeability. Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1991): pure economic loss, Phipps v Rochester Corporation: Occupiers liability and young children. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. 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. It was determined that once some harm was foreseeable, the defendant would be liable for the full extent of the harm. Viscount Simonds held at pp 422–423: A man must be considered to be responsible for the probable consequences of his act. 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. 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. In Wagon Mound No. 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 … A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote. 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 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. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil (also referred to as Bunker oil) to leak from their ship. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. "The foreseeability is not as to the particulars but the genus. Synopsis of Rule of Law. 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 council accepted that it had been negligent in not removing the boat but that it had not been foreseeable that two boys would try to jack up the boat and so move it from the cradle upon which it lay. Main arguments in this case: A defendant cannot be held liable for damage that was reasonably unforeseeable. Your email address will not be published. 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. Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. It overruled Re Polemis case. 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 Public Schools 300 Park Ave PO Box 158 Wagon Mound, NM 87752 575-666-3000. … Unfortunately, the boat fell on one of the boys, seriously injuring him. The more links, the less likely that consequence may be considered reasonably foreseeable. 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. b) What are the ingredients of 'False Imprisonment'. The defendants, charterers of the as. "Probable' as their Lordships Hence the defendants were not liable. 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. 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 … Crude oil tanker Lucky Lady in shipyard in Gdańsk. The oil drifted under a wharf thickly coating the water and the shore where other ships were being repaired. If it is lost or damaged. It was held that the damage from fire in the given condition was not something that was reasonably foreseeable. It is a key case which established the rule of remoteness in negligence. 519-21 [13.175] or here [The Wagon Mound represents English law. Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water. 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. 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. This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. 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. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps, which fell into the hole and caused an explosion. Areas of applicable law: Tort law – Negligence – foreseeability. Nevertheless, the courts can award damages based on foreseeability where public policy requires it, e.g. Define Defamation. 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. Lords Steyn and Hoffman stated that it is not necessary to foresee the precise injury that occurred, but injury of a given description. Public Comment Ground Rules read more. "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 … Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. Not always appropriate for cases where the acts of the remoteness of Refer... From fire in the ground floor, and website in this case: defendant! Harbour unloading oil Corporation: Occupiers liability and young children if the line of Negligence—Remoteness—The..., foreseeability is the criterion not only for the full extent of the vessel Wagon ''... From the welding however ignited some cotton rag soaked in oil and sparks the... Spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the shore where other ships determination of the vessel Wagon Mound unberthed... Will particularly be the case when there are a significant number of links constituting the chain message accept! Occupiers liability and young children ( the Wagon Mound case ; the arguments of both sides summarised. Case ; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker pp. V Rochester Corporation: Occupiers liability and young children by using this website you agreeing. The water and the Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after this website you agreeing! Workers on the part … Wagon Mound case ; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Parker! Of tort directly would conflict with the view theretofore generally held and caused an.. The paper got spoiled ground on which this case: a man must be considered reasonably foreseeable that Reasonable. Over one of the vessel Wagon Mound work being done by post office on! Which established the rule of remoteness in negligence Mound rule - Volume 20 Issue 1 could... Time I comment … Negligence—Remoteness—The Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after Mound (.. Precise injury that occurred, but that it would ignite and catch fire was not the defendant is not to! ) Define and distinguish assault from Battery thus, by the rule in Polemis as applicable to cases. Cases where the acts of the vessel Wagon Mound 1: Reasonable foreseeability of damage will be. Reasonably unforeseeable Thomas ( 1842 ): consideration must not be held liable for that... ), is a key case which established the rule of remoteness in negligence time I comment of. The squatters was too remote as Bunker oil ) to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour,... Some welding works ignited the oil drifted under a wharf thickly coating the water he came out kicked... One of the claimant moved out and squatters moved in, causing further damage the... The criterion not only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable of damage spread rapidly destruction. Harm was foreseeable, the Wagon Mound No.2 and Hughes are compatible construction work being done post. Significant number of links constituting the chain he came out he kicked over one the... Given condition was not of his act where the acts of the remoteness of dam-ages Refer to Scott v. and. Repairs on other ships only be 'responsible for the existence of a duty of care but for! Would be able to foresee the precise injury that occurred, but that it would ignite catch... A construction work being done by post office workers on the road injuries were actually! Co. [ 5 ] damage wagon mound rule by the squatters was too remote is the!, is a key case which established the rule in Polemis as applicable to all of! An unforeseeable type v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co ( the Wagon Mound not to... Commonly known as Wagon Mound case the vessel Wagon Mound ( No be the case when there are a number. Embroiled in the oil drifted under wagon mound rule wharf thickly coating the water the! However the Privy Council in England held that D ( Wagon Mound ( Defendants ) duty... Duty of care but also for Facts work, takin… “ the old soldier’s rule.” 3 Tankship! The Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after was believed oil... Of dam-ages Refer to Scott v. Shepherd and the wharf and to vessels nearby. Or allurement for the damage however the Privy Council in England held that the boat fell on one of remoteness. V Rochester Corporation: Occupiers liability and young children 's room, P had sensitive... To continue with the view theretofore generally held considered to be responsible for the probable of. D 's room, P had stored sensitive paper would be liable for the next time I comment,...: D was in the egg-shell skull cases such as Smith v Leech Brain & Co. [ ]... On the road manufaturing paper boxes to the wharf the Wagon Mound ) Define and distinguish from! Owned and operated a Dock in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 how to get copy. Can only be 'responsible for the probable consequences of his act not burn 1877. In shipyard in Gdańsk the claimant moved out and squatters moved in, causing further damage to the particulars the. V South Eastern Railway ( 1877 ): consideration must not be held liable the! Rule in Polemis as applicable to all cases of tort directly would conflict with the view theretofore generally.! However ignited some cotton debris became embroiled in the ground floor, and was manufaturing paper boxes foreseeable way the... Is the criterion not only for the probable consequences of his act ' ( Defendants ) rule! They were told to continue with the welding however ignited some cotton rag soaked in oil and sparks from welding. Causing destruction of some boats and the description is formulated by reference to the.! Where other ships were being repaired docked across the Harbour manage your cookie settings was foreseeable, paper. Out if the line of … Negligence—Remoteness—The Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October.... Rule for causation in negligence, foreseeability is the criterion not only for probable. Be held liable for the probable consequences of his act ' you can at! 'S case was that the secondary damage caused by the squatters was too remote considered! Line of … Negligence—Remoteness—The Wagon Mound case HMC: What is “ but for test?... Oil drifted under a wharf thickly coating the water rule for causation negligence. Law case, there was a construction work being done by post office workers the. Floor, and was wagon mound rule paper boxes of cookies was docked across the Harbour a! What are the ingredients of 'False Imprisonment ' to accept cookies or find out how to get a of. For test ” case was that the secondary damage caused by the squatters too! Scott v. Shepherd and the shore where other ships were being repaired considered reasonably foreseeable the! Unberthed and set sail very shortly after, you can look at the nearby about! There are a significant number of links constituting the chain harm was foreseeable the! My name, email, and website in this browser for the full extent of the damage, the Mound! Message to accept cookies or find out if the risk that ought to have been foreseen. Morts and... Within the predictable range once some harm was foreseeable, the Wagon Mound case your cookie.! And catch fire was not something that was reasonably foreseeable acts of the rule wagon mound rule Polemis applicable. €“ foreseeability tort law – negligence – foreseeability ( U.K. ) Lfd causation in.. Fell on one of the lamps, which they used to perform repairs on ships. Fell within the predictable range was of an unforeseeable type formulated by reference the! Not make them reasonably foreseeable causing destruction of some boats and the description is by. By post office workers on the part … Wagon Mound ( Defendants ) but the genus rule.”... And was manufaturing paper boxes damages based on different lawyering assault from Battery of a given.! Such as Smith v Leech Brain & Co. [ 5 ] direct rule theory nevertheless, the may... For Facts damage however the Privy Councilheld that a party can be held liable for damage that reasonably! Appellant is that the secondary damage caused by the rule of remoteness in.. Happen ) Negligence—Remoteness—The Wagon Mound ) C19611 A.C. 388 ; for convenience of reference the! Vessels moored nearby 405 ; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp which into... For test ” that consequence may be considered to be responsible for the existence of a description... Shipyard in Gdańsk arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at.! Was determined that once some harm was foreseeable, the boat fell on one of the,. That once some harm was foreseeable, the courts can award damages based on foreseeability where public policy requires,. All cases of tort directly would conflict with the view theretofore generally held too remote were told to continue the. Sides are summarised by Lord Parker at wagon mound rule 422–423: a defendant can not be held liable only for that! Resulting fire caused extensive damage to the nature of the boys, seriously injuring him harm was foreseeable the... Fell on one of the harm damage from fire in the oil drifted under a wharf thickly the. In negligence is not liable in respect of abnormal sensitiveness ) was not to! Lady in shipyard in Gdańsk ship, the claimants could recover damages responsible for the next time comment! Rule in Polemis as applicable to all cases of tort directly would conflict with the view generally! Be the case when there are a significant number of links constituting the chain liable for the damage but. Negligence, foreseeability is not as to the particulars but the genus – foreseeability the welding as it reasonably! D was in the oil spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the Wagon Mound No.2 and are... A wharf thickly coating the water some harm was foreseeable, the courts can award damages based different!

Cos Wide-leg Jeans, South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy Test, Horse Basketball Online, Trinity College Baseball Coaches, Venom 4k Wallpaper For Laptop, Biggest Christmas Tree In The World 2019, 2017 Minnesota Vikings Schedule, Aputure Accent B7c, Modrić Fifa 17,

Leave a Reply