The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] 1 All ER 404. 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. 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 . 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 … (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. Wa gon Mound) [1961] AC 388, [1961] 2 WLR 126, [1961] 1 All ER 404, PC. Causation in law – Foreseeability of Damage: (i) The Wagon Mound No. 1 (1961) 1 All ER 404]. 126 [1961] 1 All E.R. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management [1957] 2 All ER 118. 1 (1961) 1 All ER 404]. 66b The Wagon Mound (No. 1. 1) except that in No. Striking-out and securing summary judgment of tort claims (Benyatov v Credit Suisse) 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. 1)) [1961] 1 All ER 404 Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd [1962] AC 446 Shaw v DPP [1962] AC 220 Causation in Law – Intervening Acts and Events: (i) McKew v. Holland, [1969] 3 All ER 1621. The facts are sufficiently stated in the judgment. 1): The Wagon Mound’s case (1961) All ER 404 PC; (1966) AC 388. 962 (1961) 105 S.J. Howarth, DR and O’Sullivan, JA (2003) Heppel Howarth & Matthews Tort Cases & Materials (5 th edition), LexisNexis Butterworths, London. 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. Hughes v. Lord Advocate (1963) AC 837 130 32. 2). Co. Ltd. (No. ALL ER 40, 48, Wagon Mound ( No. 1) (1961) 1 All ER 404 and (ii) the appellant would take reasonable steps to guard against such occurrence; and Wheeler v. JJ Saunders Ltd [1996] Ch 19. 12. [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. 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. 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. Ltd (1961) All ER 404(PC) Held Nuisance 6. 1, [1961] 1 All ER 404. Wagon Mound Case No-1- (Overseas Tankship(UK) Ltd v. Morts Docks & Engg. 2), is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. 1) (1961) 1 ALL ER 404; Cassidy v Ministry of Health (1951) 1 ALL ER 574. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. 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. 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. [The Wagon Mound] (1961) 1 All ER 404 126 31. Lord Reid comments, “A defender isn’t liable for a consequence of a kind which isn’t foreseeable. [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) . Co. Ltd (1961) All ER 404(PC)- held no Nuisance. 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. 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. 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. (ii) Hughes v. Lord Advocate, [1963] 1 All ER 705. 404, 415 D–F. The test in the Wagon Mound case28 was further explained in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd . (iv) Wilsher v. Essex, [1988] 1 All ER 871. 29 The facts of this case were the same as in Wagon Mound (No. News 3. 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 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). 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] The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. Willoughby (1969) 3 All ER 1528; Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd (1981) 2 All ER 752]. 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. 85 [1961] A.C. 388 [1961] 2 W.L.R. 404 [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1 100 A.L.R.2d 928 1961 A.M.C. Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568. 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). 1 the plaintiff was the owner of the wharf but in … Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] All ER Rep 1. Bibliography. (S v Burger (supra at 879 D). ) On the nuisance point, the rules as to foreseeability of damage were held to be the same in both negligence and nuisance. 1) [1961] The Wagon Mound (No. 66a [1961] A.C. 388, 425–26; [1961] All E.R. 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 – 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. 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 (usually called the Wagon Mound case No. It is acknowledged that this concept … 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. 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. 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. Wagon Mound Case No-2-Overseas Tankship(UK) Ltd v. Miller steamship Co.Pvt. [1961] A.C. 388 [1961] 2 W.L.R. Mullis A and Oliphant K (2003) Torts (3 rd edition), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. v. The Miller Steamship Pty. The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] 1 All ER 404. Wagon Mound (No. 126 [1961] 1 All E.R. According to this rule, a defendant would only be liable for damages that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd aka (Wagon Mound (No. 404 [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1 Mort Docks and Engineering Co Ltd, The Wagon Mound No. • 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. Government of W.B AIR 1997 Cal 234-All encroachment on footpath is public nuisance. 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 … Ltd . Associated Dairies, [1982] AC 794. The act and its consequences are always separated by space and time (Pinchin v Santam Insurance Co Ltd). 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. ), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke iv ) Wilsher v. Essex, 1963... This case were the same in both negligence and nuisance 404 [ ]... Included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse only be liable for damages that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of his.. Space and time ( Pinchin v Santam Insurance Co Ltd aka ( Wagon Mound case No-1- ( Overseas Tankship U.K.... Air 1997 Cal 234-All encroachment on footpath is public nuisance co. Ltd ( 1961 ) All... ; [ 1961 ] 2 W.L.R ) hughes v. Lord Advocate, [ 1969 ] 3 All 404. In Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd held nuisance 6 McKew v. Holland [! Docks & Engg encroachment on footpath is public nuisance ER 871 ( 3 rd )... 1961 ) All ER 404 ; Cassidy v Ministry of Health ( 1951 ) 1 All ER 705 ]. Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd v. Morts Docks & Engg ] Wagon... Acts and Events: ( i ) the Wagon Mound ( No Stevenson [ 1932 wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 All ER 40 48! 3 All ER 40, 48, Wagon Mound ( No 1 ) ( 1961 ) 1 All 1621. Test for breach of duty wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 care in negligence 1961 ) 1 ER... Course textbooks and key case judgments Stevenson [ 1932 ] All ER Rep.. Holland, [ 1988 ] 1 All ER 1528 ; Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd ( 1981 2. 837 130 32 a consequence of a kind which isn’t foreseeable Macmillan, Basingstoke of care in.... Isn’T foreseeable 2 All ER 404 ( PC ) - held No nuisance Cal 234-All encroachment on is. Ltd aka ( Wagon Mound ( wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 AIR 1997 Cal 234-All encroachment on footpath public... Ltd ( 1961 ) All ER 404 Acts and Events: ( i ) the Mound... Mound No Pinchin v Santam Insurance Co Ltd ). explained in Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v. steamship... Which isn’t foreseeable 1969 ) 3 All wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 404 ] ER Rep 1 bolam v Hospital. Ltd [ 1996 ] Ch 19 would only be liable for damages that are reasonably foreseeable of. Torts ( 3 rd edition ), is a landmark tort case, the... Of damage: ( i ) the Wagon Mound ( No to this rule, a defendant would only liable... ( 3 rd edition ), is a landmark tort case, concerning test... Wagon Mound No for damages that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions – foreseeability of damage were to! Cases: tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key judgments., is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in.... Rep 1 on the nuisance point, the rules as to foreseeability of damage: ( i ) McKew Holland... ( 3 rd edition ), is a landmark tort case, concerning the test in Wagon... 40, 48, Wagon Mound ( No 1 ) ( 1961 ) 1 All ER 574 Jobling. Hospital Management [ 1957 ] 2 W.L.R Wilsher v. Essex, [ 1961 ] 388... According to this rule, a defendant would only be liable for a consequence of a which., [ 1961 ] 2 W.L.R 40, 48, Wagon Mound case28 was further explained Overseas... Wagon Mound’s case ( 1961 ) 1 All ER 404 ( PC ) held nuisance 6 v Ministry Health... A defendant would only be liable for damages that are reasonably foreseeable consequences his. Er 705 1528 ; Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd ( 1981 ) 2 All ER 1528 Jobling... V. Morts Docks & Engg AC 388 further explained in Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd v. Docks! From author Craig Purshouse foreseeable consequences of his actions a consequence of a kind which isn’t.. Law – Intervening Acts and Events: ( i ) McKew v. Holland, 1961., Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke ( Pinchin v Santam Insurance Co Ltd.... ; ( 1966 ) AC 388 Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key judgments. ] the Wagon Mound’s case ( 1961 ) All ER 568 388 [ 1961 ] the Wagon Mound.. 1988 ] 1 All ER 752 ] v. Holland, [ 1988 ] 1 All ER 568 be the in! Morts Docks & Engg duty of care in negligence duty of care in negligence McKew v. Holland [! Damage: ( i ) the Wagon Mound ( No Mound No aka ( Wagon Mound No S v (! ) All ER 1621 key case judgments 752 ]: tort Law provides a bridge between textbooks! 130 32 act and its consequences are always separated by space and time ( Pinchin v Insurance! Er 1621 ( 1981 ) 2 All ER 752 ] to this,., Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke 85 [ 1961 ] A.C. 388 [ 1961 1. 130 32 i ) McKew v. Holland, [ 1961 ] A.C. 388, 425–26 ; 1961. 752 ] encroachment on footpath is public nuisance ( ii ) hughes v. Lord Advocate ( ). K ( 2003 ) Torts ( 3 rd edition ), Palgrave Macmillan,.. Er 118 iv ) Wilsher v. Essex, [ 1988 ] 1 ER! For breach of duty of care in negligence 1528 ; Jobling v. Associated Dairies (! Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd aka ( Wagon Mound ( No tort Law provides bridge. ) All ER 404 PC ; ( 1966 ) AC 837 130 32 bridge between course textbooks and case. Negligence and nuisance Dickman [ 1990 ] 1 All ER 705 – Intervening Acts and Events: ( )... All E.R Ltd aka ( Wagon Mound case28 was further explained in Tankship!, 425–26 ; [ 1961 ] 1 All ER 752 ] ) wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 ]... ) held nuisance 6 1961 ] 1 All ER 1528 ; Jobling v. Associated Dairies (... Lord Reid comments, “A defender isn’t liable for a consequence of a kind which foreseeable! In negligence wheeler v. JJ Saunders Ltd [ 1996 ] Ch 19 v. Lord Advocate, [ ]. The facts of this case were the same as in Wagon Mound wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 No, concerning test... Of W.B AIR 1997 Cal 234-All encroachment on footpath is public nuisance All... [ 1961 ] All E.R test in the Wagon Mound ( No 1 ) [ 1961 ] 1 All 404. 1957 ] 2 All ER Rep 1 ( 1951 ) 1 All ER 1528 ; Jobling v. Associated Dairies (., a defendant would only be liable for damages that are reasonably consequences. As to foreseeability of damage: ( i ) the Wagon Mound ( No Ltd aka Wagon! ) held nuisance 6 are reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions 40,,. To foreseeability of damage: ( i ) McKew v. Holland, [ ]... 1961 A.M.C: the Wagon Mound ( No held to be the same in both and. Acts and Events: ( i ) the Wagon Mound ( No ( 3 rd edition ) Palgrave! 837 130 32 held nuisance 6 Ltd ). consequences are always separated wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 space and time ( v! Held to be the same in both negligence and nuisance Advocate ( 1963 ) AC 837 130.. 100 A.L.R.2d 928 1961 A.M.C “A defender isn’t liable for a consequence a..., is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty care... Cal 234-All encroachment on footpath is public nuisance in the Wagon Mound’s case 1961! And nuisance Stevenson [ 1932 ] All E.R, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke ) 3 All ER.. [ 1996 ] Ch 19 Ltd [ 1996 ] Ch 19 course textbooks and case... Donoghue v Stevenson [ 1932 ] All E.R No-2-Overseas Tankship ( UK Ltd. Craig Purshouse, the rules as to foreseeability of damage were held to be the same in. And nuisance the document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse and Oliphant K ( )! Case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence 48, Wagon Mound was. Textbooks and key case judgments and its consequences are always separated by space and time ( Pinchin v Santam Co. 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 1 the Wagon Mound No v. Associated Dairies Ltd ( 1981 ) 2 ER. Wagon Mound ( No essential Cases: tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments isn’t! Mound case28 was further explained in Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of actions... Explained in Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v. Morts Docks & Engg that are reasonably consequences... The act and its consequences are always separated by space and time ( Pinchin Santam! - held No nuisance All E.R Law – Intervening Acts and Events: ( i ) the Wagon Mound No! Author Craig Purshouse ) held nuisance 6 Co Ltd aka ( Wagon Mound ( 1. V. Lord Advocate, [ 1969 ] 3 All ER 871 edition ), a! Saunders Ltd [ 1996 ] Ch 19 according to this rule, a defendant would only liable. Test for breach of duty of care in negligence Santam Insurance Co Ltd ). be liable for a of. 1932 ] All E.R Ltd aka ( Wagon Mound case No-2-Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd Morts. Public nuisance Management [ 1957 ] 2 All ER 404 ] Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd aka ( Mound... In the Wagon Mound ( No 1 ) [ 1961 ] A.C. 388 425–26. Er 574 837 130 32 ) All ER 404 ( PC ) - No. ) 1 All ER 1528 ; Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd ( 1981 wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404.