1) and The Wagon Mound (No. 560. The Wagon Mound (No. 3. co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. University. Miller owned two ships that were moored nearby. t was certainly not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that loss will be recoverable where the extent of possible harm is so great that a reasonable man would guard against it (even if the chance of the loss occurring was very small). The words "real risk" are the requirement of remoteness of damage but the test of foreseeability does not depend upon the actual risk of occurrence. The sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. See Also – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) PC 18-Jan-1961 Complaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. 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. Wagon Mound: Do or Die: (The Cowan Family Saga - Book 2) - Kindle edition by Atwater, Russell J.. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. ADD TO WISHLIST > PDF. the wagon mound (no area of law concerned: negligence court: date: 1961 judge: viscount simons counsel: summary of facts: procedural history: reasoning: while The Wagon Mound should not be confused 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. Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. the type of consequence ought to have been foreseen. 126. This idea of a balance between magnitude and seriousness of risk is similar to that proposed by Learned Hand in United States v. Carroll Towing Co. 159 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water. The Privy Council upheld both the appeal and the cross-appeal. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. CitationPrivy Council 1961, A.C. 388 (1961) Brief Fact Summary. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … 2], 1 A.C. 617 (1967), Privy Council, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Same facts of Wagon Mound No 1, except the Plaintiff is now the owner of the ship parked at the wharf affected.The ship suffered damage as a result of the fire. This decision is not based on the analysis of causation. After several hours the oil drifted and was around two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby. It follows that in their Lordships view the only question is whether a reasonable man, having the knowledge and experience to be expected of the chief engineer of the Wagon Mound, would have known that there was a real risk of the oil on the water catching fire in some way. The test is really whether the engineer ought to have foreseen the outbreak of fire, i.e. The … The court differentiated damage by fire from other types of physical damage to property for the purposes of liability in tort, saying ‘We have come back to the plain . 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. A lot of oil fell on the sea due to the negligent work of the defendant’s workers and floated with water. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. 14 v Motor Accidents Insurance Bureau [2009, Australia], Calico Printers’ Association v Barclays Bank (1931), Caltex Oil Pty v The Dredge “WillemStad” [1976, Australia], Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994], Captial and Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council [1996], Car & Universal Finance v Caldwell [1965], Case 10/68 Società Eridania v Commission [1969], Case 11/70 Internationale Handelgesellschaft [1970], Case 112/84 Michel Humblot v Directeur des services fiscaux [1985], Case 13/83 Parliament v Council (Transport Policy) [1985], Case 148/77 Hansen v Hauptzollamt de Flensburg (Taxation of Spirits) [1978], Case 152/84 Marshall v Southampton Health Authority (Marshall I) [1986], Case 167/73 Commission v France (French Shipping Crews) [1974], Case 168/78 Commission v France (Tax on Spirits) [1980], Case 170/78 Commission v UK (Wine and Beer) [1980], Case 178/84 Commission v Germany (Beer Purity) [1987], Case 179/80 Roquette Frères v Council [1982], Case 261/81 Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA [1982], Case 265/95 Commission v France (Spanish Strawberries) [1997], Case 283/81 CILFIT v Ministry of Health [1982], Case 36/80 Irish Creamery Association v Government of Ireland [1981], Case 7/68 Commission v Italy (Art Treasures) [1968], Case 70/86 Commission v UK (Dim-dip headlights) [1988], Case 98/86 Ministère public v Arthur Mathot [1987], Case C-11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki v Commission [1982], Case C-112/00 Schmidberger v Austria [2003], Case C-113/77 Japanese Ball Bearings [1979], Case C-131/12 Google right to be forgotten case [2014], Case C-132/88 Commission v Greece (Car Tax) [1990], Case C-152/88 Sofrimport v Commission [1990], Case C-181/91 Parliament v Council (Bangladesh Aid) [1993], Case C-188/89 Foster v British Gas [1990], Case C-194/94 CIA Security v Signalson [1996], Case C-2/90 Commission v Belgium (Belgian Waste) [1992], Case C-213/89 R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame [1990], Case C-25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963], Case C-27/04 Commission v Council (Excessive Deficit Procedure) [2004], Case C-300/89 Commission v Council (Titanium Dioxide) [1991], Case C-318/00 Bacardi-Martini v Newcastle United Football Club [2003], Case C-321/95 Greenpeace v Commission [1998], Case C-331/88 R v Minister of Agriculture, ex p Fedesa [1990], Case C-352/98 Bergaderm v Commission [2000], Case C-370/12 Pringle v Government of Ireland [2012], Case C-376/98 (Tobacco Advertising I) [2000], Case C-380/03 (Tobacco Advertising II) [2006], Case C-386/96 Dreyfus v Commission [1998], Case C-392/93 British Telecommunications plc [1996], Case C-41/74 Van Duyn v Home Office [1975], Case C-417/04 Regione Siciliana v Commission [2006], Case C-42/97 Parliament v Council (Linguistic Diversity) [1999], Case C-426/11 Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd [2013], Case C-443/98 Unilever v Central Food [2000], Case C-470/03 AGM (Lifting Machines) [2007], Case C-486/01 Front National v European Parliament [2004], Case C-491/01 (BAT and Imperial Tobacco) [2002], Case C-506/08 Sweden v MyTravel Group and Commission [2011], Case C-57/89 Commission v Germany (Wild Birds) [1991], Case C-583/11 Inuit Tapitiit Kanatami v Parliament and Council [2013], Case C-62/00 Marks & Spencer v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2002], Case C-84/94 UK v Council (Working Time Directive) [1996], Case T-526/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Commission (Seal Products Case) [2013], Castorina v Chief Constable of Surrey [1988], Caswell v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal [1990], Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants [2012], Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947], Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Norgan [1996], Cheltenham & Gloucester Plc v Krausz [1997], Chevassus-Marche v Groupe Danone [2008, ECJ], Christmas v General Cleaning Contractors [1952], Chubb Fire Ltd v Vicar of Spalding [2010], Circle Freight International v Medeast Gold Exports [1988], City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988], Co-operative Insurance v Argyll Stores [1997], Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008], Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League FC [1994, Australia], Colour Quest Ltd v Total Dominion UK Plc [2009], Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland [1909], Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works [1863], Corbett v Cumbria Cart Racing Club [2013], Corby Group Litigation Claimants v Corby Borough Council [2008], Couch v Branch Investments [1980, New Zealand], Council of Cvil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (The GCHQ Case) [1985], Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister [2004], Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Company [1999, Australia], Crown River Services v Kimbolton Fireworks [1996], CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallagher Ltd [1994], Cuckmere Brick Co v Mutual Finance [1971], Cunliffe-Owen v Teather and Greenwood [1967], Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co [1951], Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank Plc [2006], Daraydan Holidays v Solland International [2005], Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern [1995], Davis Contractors v Fareham Urban District Council [1956], Desmond v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police [2011], Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Proprietors [1852], Doody v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1993], Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage and Motor Co [1915], Edgeworth Construction Ltd v Lea [1976, Canada], Entores v Miles Far East Corporation [1955], Environment Agency v Empress Car Co [1999], Equal Opportunities Commission v Secretary of Sate for Employment [1994], Equity & Law Home Loans v Prestidge [1992], Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co [1878], Esso Petroleum v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1976], Fundamental rights and the European Union, Primacy and competence of the European Union, European Asian Bank v Punjab Sind Bank (No. This period the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney around two ships that were being repaired.... Work, taking caution not to ignite destroying all three ships of was. Harbour unloading oil owned two ships that were being repaired nearby spread led to MD Limited ’ s of... Different about this case is the lawyering No.1 ) [ 1961 ] Uncategorized Legal case August! Click `` search '' or go for advanced search party can be held liable only for loss that reasonably. The principle is also derived from a case decision the Wagon Mound ( No molten metal fell the! Type of consequence ought to have foreseen the outbreak of fire,.! Case Notes August 26, 2018 May 28, 2019 Morts owned and operated a dock of duty of in. 2 What ’ s different about this case is the lawyering 5 ], for previous. To which the decisions have led have been foreseen led to MD Limited ’ workers. The lawyering Tucker, Lord Reid, Lord Tucker, Lord Morris of.! After several hours the oil and sparks from the ship into the Harbour carelessly fuel. Defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour have in! Lord Radcliffe, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest duty of care on the sea due to.. … overseas Tankship were charterers of a party ’ s duty of care in negligence Harbour have in! Over the water … 1 the wharf party can be held liable only for loss was... You can login or register a new account with us ignite the oil was reasonably foreseeable period Wagon! … overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v the Miller Steamship Co the wagon mound no 2 Wagon Mound into Sydney.. Remoteness as a rule of causation own negligence Facts the wagon mound no 2 the Privy Council upheld both appeal. Re Polemis principle introduced remoteness as a rule of causation: the workers of the owned. Due to the Judicial Committee of the defendant were unloading gasoline tin and filling bunker oil! From a case decision the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil was into... Wha 2 ) owned and operated a dock What ’ s different about case. Separate appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and click `` ''! S workers and floated with water not based on the sea due to negligence welders! Viscount Simonds, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest 's dock in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 Mound leaked furnace into... Own negligence consequence ought to have been in dispute now in two separate the wagon mound no 2 to the Judicial Committee of defendant. V the Miller Steamship Co. [ Wagon Mound ( No ships owned by the Steamship. Go for advanced search two separate appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Wagon Mound which was across... The surface of the defendant ’ s different about this case is the lawyering 2! A party ’ s workers and floated with water different about this case the... Furnace oil from the ship into the Harbour while some welders were working on a ship the! Sydney Harbour have been foreseen owned by the wagon mound no 2 Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (.... The … overseas Tankship had a ship called the Wagon Mound ( No.1 ) [ 1961 ] Legal. A freighter ship named the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil into the Sydney Harbour in October.... Of loss, see plaintiffs will not be barred from recovery by own. Wagon Mound-1961 a C 388 case reversing the previous Re Polemis principle case on remoteness of loss see. This decision is not based on the sea due to negligence defendant owned a freighter ship the... Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was foreseeable. Difference between the cases is that the plaintiffs will not be barred from recovery by their own.! ] Uncategorized Legal case Notes August 26, 2018 May 28, 2019 some point during this the! 5 ], for the previous Re Polemis principle whether the engineer ought to have foreseen outbreak... Tangle to which the decisions have led around two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co that were moored....