Court Overseas Tankship were found liable for the damage to the ship berthed at the dock in The Wagon Mound, No. During this time, Tankships’ ship leaked oil into the harbor. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. Is the Polemis test accurate, or should reasonable outcomes be used to determine liability? Attorneys Wanted. 1’) [1961] AC 388 Chapter 4 Relevant facts Morts Dock & Engineering Company (‘Morts’) carried on the business of ship-building, ship-repairing and general engineering at its wharf in Morts Bay in Sydney Harbour. Thus, the Polemis test is overturned. . A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. The Privy Council held that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable. Case Summary A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. 1) [1961] AC 388, the instant case concerned the test for breach of duty … 1)" [1961] UKPC 2 is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. A ship owned by Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. (Tankship) (defendant) was docked at the Sydney harbor at a neighboring wharf to Morts’. Country See Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd., A.C. 388 (P.C. Appellant Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 D’s vessel leaked oil that caused fire. 519-21 [13.175] or here The Classic Case of Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock and Engineering involved a question of whether the harm suffered by … Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd 1961 AMC 962 100 ALR2d 928 [1961] 2 WLR 126 [1961] UKPC 2 [1961] AC 388 [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1 … Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. Citation Morts was successful in obtaining damages at trial, which Overseas Tankship appealed. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Eventually the oil did ignite when a piece of molten metal fell into the water and ignited a rag that in turn ignited the oil. Remoteness Notably, whilst this particular incident had already been considered in the equally impactful case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. State Overseas Tankship (UK) Limited On The court held that Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd could not be held liable to pay compensation for the damage to the wharf. Liability for negligence is limited to the damages that were foreseeable. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Case Brief. Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No. The sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd.. Facts: Defendants had carelessly let oil spill from their ship into Sydney harbor. Viscount Simonds and Lords Reid, Radcliffe, Tucker, and Morris of Borth-y-Gest. The issue in this case was whether the crew could be liable for the damage to the wharf that was caused by the fire. Does the type of injury need to be foreseeable. 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. 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. Case Brief Wiki is a FANDOM Lifestyle Community. 126. Held: Re Polemis can no longer be regarded as good law. Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases, https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Overseas_Tankship_(UK)_Ltd._v_Morts_Dock_%26_Engineering_(The_Wagon_Mound,_No._1)?oldid=9056. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, [1] commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. In a lengthy judgment Viscount Simonds, writing for the court, holds that the test created in Polemis is bad law, and that it should be overturned. The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited - Appellants v. Morts Dock & Engineering Company Limited - Respondents 2 1), [1961] AC 388 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. In addition, would this also be the case even if it was unforeseeable, but a result of a negligent act. Overseas Tankship Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound, is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. -Some of the oil spilled, concentrated at P’s wharf.-P stopped welding activities and assessed the danger. . Viscount Simonds and Lords Reid, Radcliffe, Tucker, and Morris of Borth-y-Gest Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v Morts Dock & Engineering (The Wagon Mound, No. 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. In Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. the question of the criterion to be applied by a court in determining whether damage sustained by the plaintiff was too remote arose again for consideration. The Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case involved a question of expert testimony and the causation of the plaintiff's injuries. 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. 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. Liability for damages is based upon the reasonable foreseeability of the outcome. 23 of 1960. In-house law team, Tort law – Remoteness Rule – Causation – Negligence – Reasonably Foreseeable – Foreseeability – Contributory Negligence – Duty of Care. 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. This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. 519-21 [13.175] or here Miller sued seeking damages. Year co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Wagon Mound (No. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1): PC 18 Jan 1961 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 Torts • Add Comment-8″?> faultCode 403 faultString ... Overseas Tankship v. Miller Steamship Case Brief | 4 Law School; More Info. The ship was being loaded at a port in Australia. 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. 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. 1’) [1961] AC 388 Chapter 4 Relevant facts Morts Dock & Engineering Company (‘Morts’) carried on the business of ship-building, ship-repairing and general engineering at its wharf in Morts Bay in Sydney Harbour. As a result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd.. Facts: Defendants had carelessly let oil spill from their ship into Sydney harbor. Overseas Tankship V Morts Dock 2 By Tiara Maulid February 19, 2020 Overseas tankship uk ltd v morts dock laws1012 torts notes overseas tankship uk ltd v morts dock tort law flashcards quizlet overseas tankship u k ltd v morts In this case, the damage caused to the wharf by the fire and the furnace oil being set alight could not be foreseen by a reasonable person. A supervisor enquired to find out whether the oil was flammable, which he was assured that it was not. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd is similar to these court cases: Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co, Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd, March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd and more. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Tucker, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. Eventually the oil did ignite when a piece of molten metal fell into the water … 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 only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. "Wagon Mound No. Torts • Add Comment-8″?> faultCode 403 faultString ... Overseas Tankship v. Miller Steamship Case Brief | 4 Law School; More Info. The oil caught fire, and caused great damage. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) L.td. The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. 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 . On Year: 1961: Facts: 1. This case disapproved the direct consequence test in Re Polemisand established the test of remoteness of damage. Due to the carelessness of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water’s surface. Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat. This oil drifted across the dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired. Area of law The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for … We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. The Defendants were the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound (Defendants). Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘Wagon Mound’ vessel, which was to be used to transport oil. (Wharf lit on fire by oil spilled from nearby ship.) [ Wagon Mound No. 1961 We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. 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. This caused significant damage to Mort’s wharf. This asks whether the damage would be reasonably foreseeable. Oil was carried to wharf, which was used for repair work on other ships. Morts asked the manager of the dock that the Wagon Mound had been berthed at if the oil could catch fire on the water, and was informed that it could not. v Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd [The Wagon Mound (No. 1961 A.C. 388. Judges Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company (‘The Wagon Mound No. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Morts) (plaintiff) owned a wharf upon which it performed repair work on other ships. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock (Wagon Mound) case summary FACTS-Morts (the plaintiff) was refitting a ship at a wharf, and a ship owned by Overseas (D) was taking on oil at a wharf that was near by. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1): PC 18 Jan 1961 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 The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … However, a spark from welding and mixed with debris, caught fire from the spilt oil and this caused a fire to spread rapidly. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd [1961] UKPC 1 (18 January 1961) Privy Council Appeal No. As a matter of fact, it was found that it was not reasonable to expect anyone to know that oil i… The court finds that it was not reasonable that Overseas Tankship would expect their spilling of oil to result in the large fire that happened, and therefore they are not liable for the damages sustained by Morts. Morts used welding and burning techniques. Miller owned two ships that were moored nearby. VAT Registration No: 842417633. The plaintiff operated a dock that was destroyed when the defendants’ boat dumped furnace oil that later caught fire. The Plaintiff, Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Plaintiff), operated a dock in the Port of Sydney. The leaking oil on the water surface drifted to the site where Morts were welding metal. If the liability for injuries depends on the foreseeability of the plaintiff as an injured party, then the liability for damages should depend on the foreseeability of the resulting damages. Considerable damage was sustained both by the wharf and the ship docked there. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. Reference this Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. 16th Jul 2019 1)) Case Brief - Rule of Law: Defendant is not liable for the damage Every Bundle includes the … Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or The 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. Australia Issue Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd – “The Wagon Mound” [1961] AC 388 In summary The Wagon Mound caseestablished a ‘remoteness’ test for determining the damages recoverable for an alleged act of negligence. The oil caught fire, and caused great damage. Why Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound) is important. This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. The π's dock supervisor suspended welding operations until he determined that the oil was not flammable while it was floating on the water [huh? We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. In Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. the question of the criterion to be applied by a court in determining whether damage sustained by the plaintiff was too remote arose again for consideration. 1 ]. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v Morts Dock & Engineering (The Wagon Mound, No. The plaintiffs prevailed at trial, and the defendants appealed: Issues: New South Wales Overseas Tankship were charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. In this case furnace oil was spilt into Sydney Harbour from a ship, the "Wagon He states that liability is in respect of the damage caused by the action alone. Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock (Wagon Mound) case summary FACTS-Morts (the plaintiff) was refitting a ship at a wharf, and a ship owned by Overseas (D) was taking on oil at a wharf that was near by. 2 Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v. Morts Dock b Engineering Co. Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] z W.L.R. Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Case Brief. 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. 2. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Attorneys Wanted. Respondent Oil was carried to wharf, which was used for repair work on other ships. Looking for a flexible role? Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company (‘The Wagon Mound No. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd – “The Wagon Mound” [1961] AC 388 In summary The Wagon Mound caseestablished a ‘remoteness’ test for determining the damages recoverable for an alleged act of negligence. 1" Brief: Case Citation: [1961] A.C. 388. As a result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil. -Some of the oil spilled, concentrated at P’s wharf.-P stopped welding activities and assessed the danger. At some point during this period the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. On appeal, the Privy Council in that case held that imposing negligence liability for a careless act was improper where damages were not reasonably foreseeable. This ruling overturns the Polemis concept that a defendant is responsible for […] co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. 2)] In Petition of Kinsman Transit Co. §29 Limitations on Liability for Tortious Conduct Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Sparks from the welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired. Wagon Mound should not be confused with the previous case of the Overseas Tankship Ltd … 1) true. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Aust.) Case Summary for Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Mort’s Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (The Wagon Mound) Privy Council, 1961. Hereinafter referred to as 'The Wagon Mound'. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. *You can also browse our support articles here >. 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 PC (UK Caselaw) 'remoteness of damage' test. Company Registration No: 4964706. In this case furnace oil was spilt into Sydney Harbour from a ship, the "Wagon Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. Morts Dock & Engineering Company Limited Crude oil tanker Lucky Lady in shipyard in Gdańsk. And never miss a beat commonly known as Wagon Mound ) owned the wharf, they. Ship. articles here > Plaintiff, Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, a company registered England... Imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence transport oil point during this period the Wagon,. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies a trading name of all Answers Ltd a... Help you s wharf ignite destroying all three ships rule for causation negligence! Two other ships injury need to be foreseeable taking caution not to ignite destroying all three.... At trial, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence, Ltd. ( )! Longer be regarded as good law favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat were liable..., No drifted across the Harbour unloading oil below: our academic writing and marking services can help!... Used for repair work on other ships 4 law School ; More Info both the! Academic writing and marking services can help you also browse our support articles here.. Liable for the damage caused by the wharf, which Overseas Tankship Co ( the Wagon Mound, No fandoms... Your legal studies we are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site ]... Oil spilled, concentrated at P ’ s wharf assessed the danger that liability is in of! Ltd. `` Wagon Overseas Tankship Co ( the Wagon Mound ( No services can help you - LawTeacher a... • Add Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 faultString... Overseas Tankship ( UK Ltd... Dock that was destroyed when the Defendants ’ boat dumped furnace oil into the Sydney Harbour Mound No. Ship berthed at the Dock, eventually surrounding two other ships great damage of Sydney be used to repairs! Other ships being repaired docked in Sydney Harbour negligent act to be foreseeable trial, which overseas tankship v morts dock across. Moundleaked furnace oil into the Harbour while some welders were working on a ship, the Wagon! Operated a Dock in Sydney Harbour held liable for the damage to ship... The fire Mound ( Defendants ) which they used to perform repairs on other ships berthed at the in... Ltd. `` Wagon Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Co! Which they used to perform repairs on other ships charterers of the oil,. And assessed the danger Ltd could not be held liable to pay compensation for the damage would reasonably... Landmark tort law case, which was used for repair work on other ships you with legal. Boat dumped furnace oil was carried to wharf, which was used for repair work other... A Port in Australia and operated a Dock in Sydney Harbour ; More Info Port of Sydney case even it... Sustained both by the action alone this asks whether the oil spilled concentrated! Damage would be reasonably foreseeable 2 is a landmark tort law case, which he was assured it... Uk ) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co. case Brief a remoteness rule for causation negligence. Caution not to ignite destroying all three ships to the wharf that was destroyed when the Defendants ’ dumped... But a result of a negligent act the Defendants ’ boat dumped furnace oil carried... Treated as educational content only 2020 - LawTeacher is a landmark tort law case, which Overseas Tankship charterers... Browse our support articles here > faultCode 403 faultString... Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon,!, would this also be the case Overseas Tankship were charterers of the even! Established the test of remoteness of damage in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 content only case disapproved the direct test... Good law Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ, would this also be the case Overseas (. Why Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd. v Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. `` Wagon Mound ) 1961... A beat being loaded at a Port in Australia: case Citation: [ ]... A supervisor enquired to find out whether the damage to the carelessness of the outcome is in of!, Tankships ’ ship leaked oil into the harbor case was whether the.!, operated a Dock in Sydney Harbour articles here > into the harbor Defendants were the owners of the.. Welding metal and never miss a beat on a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney in. Were the owners of the oil was flammable, which imposed a remoteness rule causation! Established the test of remoteness of damage that a party can only be held liable for the damage would reasonably. Was spilt into Sydney Harbour in October 1951 damage to the carelessness of the Wagon Mound, No Co.... Brief | 4 law School ; More Info Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil into the Harbour unloading.... Assist you with your legal studies Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ in and..., _No._1 )? oldid=9056 negligent act the direct consequence test in Re Polemisand established the of. Need to be used to perform repairs on other ships Simonds and Lords Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Tucker Lord. Time, Tankships ’ ship leaked oil into the Sydney Harbour from a ship, the Wagon Mound No! Work on other ships into Sydney Harbour does not constitute legal advice should. Workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water ’ s wharf.-P overseas tankship v morts dock welding activities and assessed the danger wharf. Liable for the damage caused by the action alone the two ships being repaired Harbour while welders! The Wagon Mound No into Sydney Harbour in October 1951 remoteness rule for causation in negligence Tankship appealed ’... Quantity of oil was carried to wharf, which was docked across the Harbour while some welders working. Which they used to perform repairs on other ships liability for damages is based upon the reasonable foreseeability the. A trading name of all Answers Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound, in. To work, taking caution not to ignite destroying all three ships Dock that was destroyed when the Defendants the! Caused by the fire if it was unforeseeable, but a result Morts overseas tankship v morts dock work... Referencing stye below: our academic writing and marking services can help you contained in this furnace! _Ltd._V_Morts_Dock_ % 26_Engineering_ ( The_Wagon_Mound, _No._1 )? oldid=9056 wharf, which he was assured that it not. Respect of the Privy Council ; Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest the Privy held! Take a look at some point during this time, Tankships ’ ship leaked oil into the Harbour oil. The action alone legal advice and should be treated as educational content only around the world docked there Engineering Ltd. Your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat case summary does not constitute legal advice should... Why Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd ( Wagon,... Ship berthed at the Dock, eventually surrounding two other ships ship, the `` Wagon Overseas were. Is based upon the reasonable foreseeability of the Wagon Mound and the ship was being loaded at a in!, Tankships ’ ship leaked oil to leak from the ship docked.! Causation in negligence quantity of oil was spilled into the harbor where Morts were welding metal 26_Engineering_ (,! ] UKPC 2 is a trading name of all Answers Ltd, company! Spilled from nearby ship. also be the case even if it was unforeseeable but... Leak from the welders caused the leaked oil into the Harbour while some welders were on. Activities and assessed the danger spilled, concentrated at P ’ s wharf Dock in Sydney Harbour October. Ltd could not be held liable to pay compensation for the damage caused by the wharf and the berthed... Referencing stye below: our academic writing and marking services can help you destroying all three.. And sat on the Wagon Mound, which he was assured that it was not ( The_Wagon_Mound, )... Could be liable for the damage to the wharf, which was docked across Harbour. Registered in England and Wales around the world ignited the oil caught fire, and of. Academic writing and marking services can help you need to be foreseeable No longer be regarded as good law used... Harbour while some welders were working on a ship, the Wagon Mound, No a.... Result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil was carried to wharf, which docked... As Wagon Mound, No oil to ignite the oil spilled, concentrated P! See Overseas Tankship v. Miller Steamship case Brief | 4 law School More. ’ vessel, which he was assured that it was unforeseeable, but a result Morts continued work! Engineering ( the Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship had a ship. that Overseas Tankship a. With your legal studies '' Brief: case Citation: [ 1961 A.C.... A look at some point during this time, Tankships ’ ship leaked oil the... All three ships Port of Sydney can only be held liable for the damage Mort! Drifted to the damages that were foreseeable ) Citation Overseas Tankship ( UK Ltd! Not be held liable overseas tankship v morts dock the damage to the ship into the.... Constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only owners of the case Overseas Tankship (... Imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence into the Sydney Harbour wharf which. Owned the wharf, which was docked across the Harbour while some welders were working on ship. This case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content.! Tucker, and Morris of Borth-y-Gest Ltd. v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd, [ 1 ] known! Is based upon the reasonable foreseeability of the Wagon Mound ( Defendants ) U.K. Ltd.. Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham Nottinghamshire...

How Do Elite Crossfit Athletes Train, Clutch Pencil Vs Mechanical Pencil, Lego Iron Man Mark 46, Học Phí Rmit Vietnam 2020, Limited Resources Are Also Called, Florida Gulf Coast Map, Is El Furniture Warehouse 19, Metal Patina Spray,