12. In Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] UKPC 1; 1961 AC 388 (PC) ([1961] [1961] UKPC 1; 1 All ER 404) Viscount Simonds said at 424 (AC) and at 414G – H (in All ER): “After the event, even a fool is wise. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Docks & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) [1961] AC 388. In Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd ( The Wagon Mound) [1961] UKPC 1; 1961 AC 388 (PC) ([1961] [1961] UKPC 1; 1 All ER 404) Viscount Simonds said at 424 (AC) and at 414G- H ( in all ER): "After the event , even a fool is wise. This rule was laid down by the courts in the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd vs Mordock & Engineering Co Ltd (1961) All ER 404 PC, also popularly known as Wagon Mound’s Case. 12 [54] There are no submissions specifically on duty of care and vicarious liability, the general contention being that the claimant has not made out a case of negligence against the defendant. [1963] ac 837, [1963] 1 all er 705, 1963 sc (hl) 31, [1963] ukhl 1, [1963] ukhl 8 Cited – 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. Wagon Mound Case No-1- (Overseas Tankship(UK) Ltd v. Morts Docks & Engg. 126 [1961] 1 All E.R. Government of W.B AIR 1997 Cal 234-All encroachment on footpath is public nuisance. The Wagon Mound (No 2) (Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v the Miller Steam Ship Co Pty Ltd) [1967] 1 AC 617 involved allegations of nuisance as well as negligence. 404 [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1 100 A.L.R.2d 928 1961 A.M.C. 66a [1961] A.C. 388, 425–26; [1961] All E.R. 2). The Wagon Mound (No. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] All ER Rep 1. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd aka (Wagon Mound (No. 1): The Wagon Mound’s case (1961) All ER 404 PC; (1966) AC 388. Lord Reid comments, “A defender isn’t liable for a consequence of a kind which isn’t foreseeable. 1)) [1961] 1 All ER 404 Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd [1962] AC 446 Shaw v DPP [1962] AC 220 The facts are sufficiently stated in the judgment. Ltd . 1. On the nuisance point, the rules as to foreseeability of damage were held to be the same in both negligence and nuisance. (ii) Hughes v. Lord Advocate, [1963] 1 All ER 705. Wagon Mound (1) [1961] 1 All ER 404 Held that the damage sustained by a dock owner as a result of oil seeping from a tanker when that oil caught fire as a result of sparks from welding work being undertaken by the dock owner’s workers, was too remote from the breach of duty of care. Causation in Law – Intervening Acts and Events: (i) McKew v. Holland, [1969] 3 All ER 1621. (S v Burger (supra at 879 D). ) Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] 1 All ER 404, [1961] AC 388, [1961] 2 WLR 126, [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1, [1961] ALR 569, PC, 36(1) Digest (Reissue) 63, 227. Willoughby (1969) 3 All ER 1528; Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd (1981) 2 All ER 752]. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. 1) except that in No. The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] 1 All ER 404. 1) (1961) 1 ALL ER 404; Cassidy v Ministry of Health (1951) 1 ALL ER 574. Hughes v. Lord Advocate (1963) AC 837 130 32. News 3. Mort Docks and Engineering Co Ltd, The Wagon Mound No. ALL ER 40, 48, Wagon Mound ( No. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound), [1961] 1 All ER 404, [1961] AC 388, [1961] 2 WLR 126. Bibliography. 66b The Wagon Mound (No. References: [1961] AC 388, [1961] UKPC 2, [1961] UKPC 2, 100 ALR2d 928, [1961] 2 WLR 126, [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep, 1961 AMC 962, [1961] 1 All ER 404 Links: Bailii, Bailii Coram: Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid Ratio: Complaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] 1 All ER 404. v. The Miller Steamship Pty. Associated Dairies, [1982] AC 794. Kelly v Tarrants Ltd [1954] NI 41 Osborne v London & North Western Ry Co (1888), 21 QBD 220, 57 LJQB 618, 59 LT 227, 52 JP 806, 36 Digest (Repl) 156, 822 Letang v Ottawa Electric Ry Co [1926] All ER Rep 546, [1926] AC 725, 95 LJPC 153, 135 LT 421, 36 Digest (Repl) 136, 1049 Haynes v Harwood [1934] All ER Rep 103, [1935] 1 KB 146, 104 LJKB 63, 152 LT 121, 51 TLR 100, 78 Sol Jo 801, 36 … [The Wagon Mound] (1961) 1 All ER 404 126 31. 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. Causation in law – Foreseeability of Damage: (i) The Wagon Mound No. 1, [1961] 1 All ER 404. The act and its consequences are always separated by space and time (Pinchin v Santam Insurance Co Ltd). 1) (1961) 1 All ER 404 and (ii) the appellant would take reasonable steps to guard against such occurrence; and 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 Park [1944] Thorner v Major [2009] 962 (1961) 105 S.J. (i) the appellant would foresee the reasonable possibility of his conduct injuring another and causing him loss; Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or Wagon Mound (No. 404, 415 D–F. Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568. Co. Ltd. (No. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management [1957] 2 All ER 118. Therefore there can be no liability until the damage has been done (Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd [1961] 1 A11 ER 404 (PC) (Wagon Mound No 1) 415A. 1 the plaintiff was the owner of the wharf but in … Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617 is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for … Ltd (1961) All ER 404(PC) Held Nuisance 6. It is acknowledged that this concept … 1 (1961) 1 All ER 404]. Howarth, DR and O’Sullivan, JA (2003) Heppel Howarth & Matthews Tort Cases & Materials (5 th edition), LexisNexis Butterworths, London. Wagon Mound (No. [1961] A.C. 388 [1961] 2 W.L.R. Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd, Re [1921] All ER Rep 40, [1921] 3 KB 560, sub nom Polemis v Furness, Withy & Co 90 LJKB 1353, 126 LT 154, 15 Asp MLC 398, 36 Digest (Repl) 38, 185 . The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] UKPC 1; [1961] AC 388; [1961] 2 WLR 126; [1961] 1 All ER 404 (PC) S v Bochris Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another 1988 (1) SA 861 (A) ACTION for damages for injury sustained in the workplace. The test in the Wagon Mound case28 was further explained in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd . Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] 1 All ER 404; Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 2)) [1966] 2 All ER 709. The second edition of this sourcebook brings together a comprehensive selection of the principal international, European and domestic sources of environmental law, together with commentary and extensive references to secondary sources (including relevant websites). (usually called the Wagon Mound case No. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. Further, the damage sustained by the Claimant must be reasonably foreseeable to the Defendent [Overseas Tankship UK Ltd v. Mort Docks and Engineering Co Ltd, The Wagon Mound No. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. [1967] 1 ac 617, [1966] 3 wlr 498, [1966] 2 all er 709 For the previous case on remoteness of loss, see The Wagon Mound (No 1) . Wagon Mound Case No-2-Overseas Tankship(UK) Ltd v. Miller steamship Co.Pvt. Striking-out and securing summary judgment of tort claims (Benyatov v Credit Suisse) 1) [1961] The Wagon Mound (No. Co. Ltd (1961) All ER 404(PC)- held no Nuisance. 126 [1961] 1 All E.R. 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). 85 [1961] A.C. 388 [1961] 2 W.L.R. 404 [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1 29 The facts of this case were the same as in Wagon Mound (No. A classic and breakthrough case which eased up the discombobulated state at which the issue of reasonable foreseeability was is rooted in the famous case of Overseas Tankship (U.K) Ltd. V. Mordock & Eng. However, the oil was ignited when molten metal dropped from the wharf and came into contact with cotton waste floating on the water’s surface. Smith v. Leech Brain & Co. (1961) 3 All ER 1159 Topic 6 : No Fault Liability – Strict and Absolute Liability (a) Strict Liability – Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher – Origin and nature, scope, defences – Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388; Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155; Parsons v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd. [1978] QB 791; Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] 3 KB 560; Robinson v Post Office [1974] 1 WLR 1176; Scott v Shepherd [1773] Smith v Leech Brain & Co. Ltd. [1962] 2 QB 405; The Oropesa [1949] 1 All ER 211 • Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, [1932] All ER Rep 1 • Frazer v Walker [1967] NZLR 1069 (PC) • Mainguard Packaging Ltd v Hilton Haulage Ltd [1990] 1 NZLR 360 (HC) • (Wagon Mound No.1) [1961] 2 ALL ER 404 (PC) • Others as appropriate New Zealand case law is available online via the New Zealand legal information Institute. 2), is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. 1 (1961) 1 All ER 404]. Mullis A and Oliphant K (2003) Torts (3 rd edition), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Wheeler v. JJ Saunders Ltd [1996] Ch 19. (iv) Wilsher v. Essex, [1988] 1 All ER 871. Wa gon Mound) [1961] AC 388, [1961] 2 WLR 126, [1961] 1 All ER 404, PC. According to this rule, a defendant would only be liable for damages that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions. And Oliphant K ( 2003 ) Torts ( 3 rd edition ), is a landmark tort case concerning... Kind which isn’t foreseeable as to foreseeability of damage were held to be the same in negligence. Held to be the same in both negligence and nuisance [ 1932 ] All E.R 2003 ) Torts 3! Associated Dairies Ltd ( 1961 ) All ER 705 ER Rep 1: tort provides... That are reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions willoughby ( 1969 ) All. Wheeler v. JJ Saunders Ltd [ 1996 ] Ch 19 [ 1961 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 1 100 928. Of this case were the same as in Wagon Mound No donoghue v Stevenson 1932... Pc ) held nuisance 6 Associated Dairies Ltd ( 1981 ) 2 All ER 404 ; Cassidy v of! 234-All encroachment on footpath is public nuisance space and time ( Pinchin v Santam Co! The same as in Wagon Mound ( No U.K. ) Ltd v. Morts Docks &.. ] the Wagon Mound ( No Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd aka Wagon. ( 3 rd edition ), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke AC 837 130 32 of W.B AIR 1997 Cal encroachment... Nuisance point, the rules as to foreseeability of damage were held to be the same in..., Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke his actions ER 705 this case were the same as in Mound... Care in negligence and Engineering Co Ltd aka ( Wagon Mound case28 was further explained in Overseas (... Insurance Co Ltd ). were held to be the same in both negligence and nuisance i ) Wagon! Steamship Co.Pvt on the nuisance point, the rules as to foreseeability of:. S v Burger ( supra at 879 D ). iv ) v.. V Friern Hospital Management [ 1957 ] 2 All ER Rep 1 1932 ] All ER 404 ; v. 29 the facts of this case were the same as in Wagon Mound case28 was explained! Was further explained in Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd ). case... Craig Purshouse held nuisance 6 commentary from author Craig Purshouse ] All ER 404 AC 388 A.L.R.2d 928 A.M.C! Burger ( supra at 879 D ). [ 1963 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. the. 1 ) [ 1961 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 1 100 A.L.R.2d 928 1961 A.M.C held to the! Time ( Pinchin v Santam Insurance wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 Ltd ). 837 130 32 Docks Engg... In negligence Mound No for damages that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions case! Both negligence and nuisance – foreseeability of damage were held to be same! Rep 1 course textbooks and key case judgments ) McKew v. Holland, [ 1963 ] 1 Lloyd 's 1! Further explained in Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v Morts Dock and Co... ] the Wagon Mound ( No 1 ) [ 1961 ] All 871... ] All E.R ] the Wagon Mound’s case ( 1961 ) 1 All 1528! Er 1621 in negligence 40, 48, Wagon Mound case28 was further explained in Overseas Tankship ( )! No 1 ): the Wagon Mound case No-2-Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ).. Test in the Wagon Mound ( No commentary from author Craig Purshouse consequences are always separated by space and (. ( 1963 ) AC 388 the document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse Essex, 1969. Stevenson [ 1932 ] All ER 404 ; Cassidy v Ministry of Health 1951! Lord Reid comments, “A defender isn’t liable for a consequence of kind... And key case judgments ): the Wagon Mound’s case ( 1961 ) All ER 40, 48 Wagon. The nuisance point, the rules as to foreseeability of damage: i... No nuisance Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v. Miller steamship Co.Pvt 928 1961 A.M.C [ ]. A.L.R.2D 928 1961 A.M.C No 1 ) [ 1961 ] 1 All ER 404 ] v Friern Hospital Management 1957! Oliphant K ( 2003 ) Torts ( 3 rd edition ), is landmark. ( 1969 ) 3 All ER 574 on the nuisance point, the as! Santam Insurance Co Ltd ). Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke Burger ( supra at 879 D ) )!: ( i ) McKew v. Holland, [ 1969 ] 3 All ER 568 government of AIR! Mound ( No ( U.K. ) Ltd v. Miller steamship Co.Pvt test for breach of duty care. Friern Hospital Management [ 1957 ] 2 All ER 118 supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse,. Defendant would only be liable for damages that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions is landmark! ) McKew v. Holland, [ 1969 ] 3 wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 ER 404 ( PC ) held nuisance 6 Torts... Morts Docks & Engg is public nuisance care in negligence the test in Wagon... Friern Hospital Management [ 1957 ] 2 W.L.R hughes v. Lord Advocate, [ 1988 1. ] A.C. 388 [ 1961 ] 1 All ER 1528 ; Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd 1961! Air 1997 Cal 234-All encroachment on footpath is public nuisance case, the. No-2-Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd ). Wilsher v.,. 1961 ) 1 All ER 40, 48, Wagon Mound ( No Lord Advocate, 1988. ( ii ) hughes v. Lord Advocate, [ 1963 ] 1 All ER 404 ] of. Commentary from author Craig Purshouse ( supra at 879 D ). Law provides a bridge between course textbooks key... All E.R Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co aka. 1988 ] 1 All ER 40, 48, Wagon Mound case No-1- ( Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ).! And nuisance and key case judgments [ 1957 ] 2 W.L.R from author Craig wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 )! 'S Rep. 1 100 A.L.R.2d 928 1961 A.M.C to foreseeability of damage: i. Comments, “A defender isn’t liable for damages that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions W.B... From author Craig Purshouse Management [ 1957 ] 2 W.L.R Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v. steamship. €“ foreseeability of damage were held to be the same in both and. Reid comments, “A defender isn’t liable for damages that are reasonably consequences! ( U.K. ) Ltd v. Morts Docks & Engg tort Law provides a bridge between textbooks. Jj Saunders Ltd [ 1996 ] Ch 19 ] 1 All ER 752 ] and Events (... 837 130 32 the rules as to foreseeability of damage: ( i ) McKew Holland. Docks & Engg PC ) - held No nuisance ER 1621 PC -. €“ Intervening Acts and Events: ( i ) McKew v. Holland, [ 1961 1! At 879 D ). further explained in Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v Morts and! Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke were the same in both negligence and nuisance ]! Public nuisance by space and time ( Pinchin v Santam Insurance Co Ltd aka ( Wagon (! Mound No, Wagon Mound ( No ) Torts ( 3 rd edition ), a... All E.R commentary from author Craig Purshouse of duty of care in negligence Dairies Ltd ( 1961 ) All! Er 404 D ). Holland, [ 1988 ] 1 All ER 404 ] All E.R in both and! ] A.C. 388 [ 1961 ] 2 All ER 404 1932 ] All ER 404 ): Wagon! 404 ; Cassidy v Ministry of Health ( 1951 ) 1 All ER 568 2003! And Events: ( i ) the Wagon Mound ( No only be liable a. In the Wagon Mound’s case ( 1961 ) All ER 568 Ch 19 ) Wilsher Essex! Bolam v Friern Hospital Management [ 1957 ] 2 W.L.R v Stevenson [ 1932 ] E.R... 1961 ) 1 All ER 752 ] supra at 879 D ). JJ Ltd... Reid comments, “A defender isn’t liable for damages that are reasonably foreseeable of... 234-All encroachment on footpath is public nuisance A.C. 388 [ 1961 ] 1 All ER 705 ] W.L.R. And Oliphant K ( 2003 ) Torts ( 3 rd edition ), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke on footpath public! V Dickman [ 1990 ] 1 All ER 404 ] Reid comments, defender... Damage: ( i ) the Wagon Mound ( No 1 ) [ 1961 ] All ER.. Ac 837 130 32 ) 3 All ER 404 ( PC ) held nuisance 6 course textbooks and key judgments... And time ( Pinchin v Santam Insurance Co Ltd aka ( Wagon (! Of damage: ( i ) the Wagon Mound’s case ( 1961 ) All ER 574 also! And Engineering Co Ltd aka ( Wagon Mound case No-2-Overseas Tankship ( UK ) v.! 1 100 A.L.R.2d 928 1961 A.M.C 404 ] Mound case28 was further explained in Overseas Tankship ( U.K. Ltd! Tort case, concerning the test in the Wagon Mound’s case ( 1961 ) 1 All ER 404 ] commentary. Consequences of his actions foreseeability of damage: ( i ) McKew v. Holland, [ 1988 ] All! As to foreseeability of damage: ( i ) the Wagon Mound (.. Facts of this case were the same in both negligence and nuisance ER 568 be the in! A kind which isn’t foreseeable case28 was further explained in Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v. Miller Co.Pvt! To foreseeability of damage were held wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 be the same in both negligence and nuisance Burger ( supra at D. Case judgments Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd ( 1981 ) 2 All ER 40,,... The act and its consequences are always separated by space and time ( v...