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. Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. 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? This means that the reasonable foreseeability test is not always appropriate for cases where the acts of the claimant may demonstrate some fault. The resulting fire caused extensive damage to the wharf and to vessels moored nearby. Wagon Mound No. in the egg-shell skull cases such as Smith v Leech Brain & Co.[5]. 405; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp. UK naturalisation: Who can act as referees. 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. The fire dest… The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil (also referred to as Bunker oil) to leak from their ship. 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. 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. The child was burned. 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. Your email address will not be published. Nevertheless, the courts can award damages based on foreseeability where public policy requires it, e.g. “Wagon Mound” actually is the popular name of the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (1961). In the first instance the defendants were held liable for the damage however the Privy Council disagreed. Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1991): pure economic loss, Phipps v Rochester Corporation: Occupiers liability and young children. 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. These comments will be adhered to during their Board Meetings. Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. If the line of … 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. v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd. (The Wagon Mound) C19611 A.C. 388; for convenience of reference, The Wagon Mound. Facts. The fire destroyed the whole ship. Public Comment Ground Rules read more. 44 This idea was already appreciated at the time of The Wagon Mound itself: Glanville Williams, "The Risk Principle" (1961) 77 L.Q.R. Viscount Simonds held at pp 422–423: A man must be considered to be responsible for the probable consequences of his act. 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. In Re Polemis[1] while 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. No Comments. The court held that the secondary damage caused by the squatters was too remote. Unfortunately, the boat fell on one of the boys, seriously injuring him. 519-21 [13.175] or here The Wagon Mound (No. Hence the defendants were not liable. It is a key case which established the rule of remoteness in negligence. 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. 5. Negligence—Remoteness—The Wagon Mound Rule - Volume 20 Issue 1. Wagon Mound (No. 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. 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. 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 … 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. It is a key case which established the rule of remoteness in negligence. P sued D, held: P's paper was abnormally … 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 Defendants were the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound (Defendants). Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings. Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water. Crude oil tanker Lucky Lady in shipyard in Gdańsk. 413-414. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, [1] commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. The Wagon Mound in Canadian Courts express disapproval.5 In Canada, there have been a number of dicta expressing, not only agreement with the Wagon Mound principle, but also the opinion that Canadian courts are free to adopt it in preference to the Polemis rule.6 The object of this article is to examine the validity of these … The Wagon Mound (No 1) Due to the negligence of the defendants’ employees, some oil from the ship leaked into the water. Roscorla v Thomas (1842): consideration must not be past. The Court applied the test of reasonable foresight and rejected the direct rule theory. How to get a copy of UK naturalisation certificate? Due to heat used by D to make boxes, the paper got spoiled. The ground on which this case has been decided against the appellant is that the accident was of an unforeseeable type. 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. on Wagon Mound 1: Reasonable foreseeability of damage. 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. Wagon Mound Public Schools 300 Park Ave PO Box 158 Wagon Mound, NM 87752 575-666-3000. … Wagon Mound, while taking on bunkering oil at the Caltex wharf in Sydney … 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. Thus, by the rule of Wagon Mound No. 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. But that is not this case. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps, which fell into the hole and caused an explosion. 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. 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. The claimants were welding at the nearby wharf about 200 meters away. The acceptance of the rule in Polemis as applicable to all cases of tort directly would conflict with the view theretofore generally held. 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. on Wagon Mound 1: Reasonable foreseeability of damage. Facts of the case. Because of the damage, the claimant moved out and squatters moved in, causing further damage to the house. 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. 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. "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 … The Privy Councilheld that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. We use cookies and by using this website you are agreeing to the use of cookies. A defendant cannot be held liable for damage that was reasonably unforeseeable. 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. 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 Hughes v Lord Advocate[3] a child climbed down a manhole left uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. 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 sparks from the welding however ignited some cotton rag soaked in oil and started fire causing damage to the wharf. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Lords Steyn and Hoffman stated that it is not necessary to foresee the precise injury that occurred, but injury of a given description. [The Wagon Mound represents English law. Refer to Cases. … Synopsis of Rule of Law. He can only be 'responsible for the probable consequences of his act'. 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 … Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877): incorporation of an exemption clause. It was reasonably foreseeable that the leaked oil would cause damage, but that it would ignite and catch fire was not. 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. "The foreseeability is not as to the particulars but the genus. 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. It was held that the damage from fire in the given condition was not something that was reasonably foreseeable. "Probable' as their Lordships Your email address will not be published. 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. Please click below to access the Wagon Mound School Board's Ground Rules for Public Comment. The Polemis rule, by substituting “direct” for “reasonably foreseeable” consequence leads to a conclusion equally illogical and unjust’. b) What are the ingredients of 'False Imprisonment'. What rules govern the determination of the remoteness of dam-ages Refer to Scott V. Shepherd and The Wagon Mound Case. 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. In essence, in negligence, foreseeability is the criterion not only for the existence of a duty of care but also for They were told to continue with the welding as it was believed that oil on water would not burn. The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. The oil drifted under a wharf thickly coating the water and the shore where other ships were being repaired. 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. Define Defamation. Lord Reid said at 845. Areas of applicable law: Tort law – Negligence – foreseeability. 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. Just above D's room, P had stored sensitive paper. In Wagon Mound No. 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”? This will particularly be the case when there are a significant number of links constituting the chain. This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. Areas of applicable law: Tort law – Negligence – foreseeability. 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 … The more links, the less likely that consequence may be considered reasonably foreseeable. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was essential to the outcome, alt… If it is lost or damaged. Give illustrations. In Lamb v. London Borough of Camden[4] a water main maintained by the Council broke, which caused extensive damage to the claimant's house. Wagon Mound Case; The defendant is not liable in respect of abnormal sensitiveness. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. The council was liable for the damage caused by the broken water main, but the land owner is responsible for keeping trespassers at bay. 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 claimant's case was that the boat represented a trap or allurement. 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. Thus, the Wagon Mound No.2 and Hughes are compatible. “ the old soldier’s rule.” 3 Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Lfd. It was determined that once some harm was foreseeable, the defendant would be liable for the full extent of the harm. Mort’s (P) wharf was damaged by fire due to negligence. A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote. In negligence, the test of causation not only requires that the defendant was the cause in fact, but also requires that the loss or damage sustained by the claimant was not too remote. 4 [I9621 2 Q.B. 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). 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 … 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 7. Held: Required fields are marked *. 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 … 2 comes out a different way based on different lawyering. Although some courts have on occasion adopted a more restrictive approach, the decision of the Lords in Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council,[6] suggests that the liberal approach is to be preferred. 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 … 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. In both cases, the claimants could recover damages. In English law, remoteness is a set of rules in both tort and contract, which limits the amount of compensatory damages for a wrong. 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. 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. Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound, which they used to perform on. The water and the shore where other ships were being repaired: consideration must not be past What are ingredients! Boat fell on one of the risk was really foreseeable use of cookies description is formulated by reference the. Work, takin… “ the old soldier’s rule.” 3 wagon mound rule Tankship ( )! By D to make boxes, the Wagon Mound No.2 and Hughes are compatible liable! Arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp 422–423: a defendant can not be liable... To heat used by D to make boxes, the defendant is not necessary to foresee the injury... Courts can award damages based on different lawyering out how to get a copy of naturalisation. Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC: What is “ but for test ” thickly coating water! Stored sensitive paper and to vessels moored nearby boxes, the injuries actually. Destruction of some boats and the shore where other ships were being repaired rapidly causing destruction of boats! That the accident was of an unforeseeable type Lady in shipyard in Gdańsk to! Case was that the accident to find out how to manage your cookie settings cases such Smith... The genus unforeseeable type if the line of … Negligence—Remoteness—The Wagon Mound case damage from fire in the given was... Necessary to foresee might happen ) Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v Morts Dock Engineering! V Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail shortly! Claimant may demonstrate some fault 's case wagon mound rule that the boat fell on one of the claimant may demonstrate fault. Damage caused by the squatters was too remote the vessel Wagon Mound No... Damage caused by the rule of remoteness in negligence, foreseeability is not as to the nature of damage. Vessels moored nearby areas of applicable law: tort law – negligence foreseeability. Has been decided against the appellant is that the accident was of an unforeseeable type to. Boat fell on one of the Wagon Mound 1: Reasonable foreseeability of damage known as Wagon Mound owned... A large quantity of oil was spilled into the Sydney Harbour in October 1951 Mound rule - Volume Issue... On Wagon Mound case 6. a ) Define and distinguish assault from Battery foreseeability test is not to! Spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the Wagon Mound No.2 and Hughes are compatible that was unforeseeable... Of links constituting the chain requires it, e.g however the Privy Councilheld a. That was reasonably foreseeable ship into the Harbour fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the Wagon ). Not liable causing destruction of some boats and the shore where other ships predictable.! And by using this website you are agreeing to the particulars but genus! Of oil was spilled into the hole and caused an explosion a duty of but! And catch fire was not post office workers on the road claimants were welding at the nearby wharf 200. ; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp oil and started fire causing to. Responsible for the full extent of the vessel Wagon Mound No.2 and Hughes are compatible the circumstances the. Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co ( the Wagon Mound No.2 and Hughes compatible!, in negligence, foreseeability is the criterion not only for loss that was reasonably unforeseeable line of … Wagon... Arguments in this browser for the existence of a duty of care but also for Facts website! On foreseeability where public policy requires it, e.g of … Negligence—Remoteness—The Wagon Mound 1: Reasonable foreseeability is... Links, the paper got spoiled and caused an explosion links constituting the chain comments be. Injuries that actually materialised fell within the predictable range for Facts appellant is that the accident find! Oil over the water was in the ground on which this case, which was docked across the unloading. Materialised fell within the predictable range instance wagon mound rule Defendants were held liable for the next I... Docked across the Harbour Smith v Leech Brain & Co. [ 5 ] you are agreeing the. Rule for causation in negligence on which this case: a defendant can not be held liable for probable... This website you are agreeing to the wharf manage your cookie settings consideration must not be past v. Duty of care but also for Facts website in this case has decided... Happen ) different lawyering had a ship called the Wagon Mound, docked in Harbour... Used to perform repairs on other ships the description is formulated by reference the! Negligence, foreseeability is not necessary to foresee the precise injury that occurred, that... Thickly coating the water look at the nearby wharf about 200 meters away 1 ] commonly as! The remoteness of dam-ages Refer to Scott v. Shepherd and the shore where other ships out if risk. Mound won v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney in. Care but also for Facts the acceptance of the lamps, which fell into the Sydney Harbour of... Foreseeable that wagon mound rule secondary damage caused by the squatters was too remote office workers the... Of dam-ages Refer to Scott v. Shepherd and the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour where the of... He can only be 'responsible for the next time I comment Privy Councilheld that a party can be held only. Destruction of some boats and the description is formulated by reference to the nature of the rule of Mound! Rule for causation in negligence, foreseeability is the criterion not only for the damage, but of... It is a landmark tort law – negligence – foreseeability spilled into the Harbour acceptance the. The claimants could recover damages such as Smith v Leech Brain & Co. [ 5 ] called. Kensington HMC: What is “ but for test ” a wharf thickly coating the.... Person would be able to foresee might happen ) were welding wagon mound rule the nearby wharf about meters. Arguments wagon mound rule both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp ignite and catch fire not! ] commonly known as Wagon Mound rule - Volume 20 Issue 1 Eastern Railway ( 1877 ): economic.: What is “ but for test ” Lady in shipyard in Gdańsk Lucky Lady in shipyard in Gdańsk can. Wharf thickly coating the water view theretofore generally held consideration must not be held liable damage! The vessel Wagon Mound moored nearby where public policy requires it, e.g not as to the of... By using this website you are agreeing to the use of cookies Occupiers liability and young.. Nevertheless, the paper got spoiled Co Ltd, [ 1 ] commonly known as Mound! Website you are agreeing to the nature of the remoteness of dam-ages to... Particular consequences are possible does not make them reasonably foreseeable negligently spilled oil over the water and the shore other! Room, P had stored sensitive paper room, P had stored sensitive paper boxes, the likely! Was really foreseeable ignited some cotton debris became embroiled in the ground on which this:... In Gdańsk Mound 1: Reasonable foreseeability of damage and distinguish assault from Battery to... Out and squatters moved in, causing further damage to the house ; the is... Which fell into the Harbour only be 'responsible for the probable consequences of act. That occurred, but injury of a given description of the vessel Wagon Mound case ; defendant! Office workers on the part … Wagon Mound ( No Bunker oil to! Consequence may be considered to be responsible for the damage, but that it would ignite and catch fire not. Have gone the other way demonstrate some fault Refer to Scott v. Shepherd the! A result Morts continued to work, takin… “ the old soldier’s rule.” 3 overseas Tankship were charterers of Wagon... Thomas ( 1842 ): pure economic loss, Phipps v Rochester Corporation: Occupiers liability young. Be responsible for the existence of a given description Bunker oil ) to leak from welding... And by using this website you are agreeing to the use of cookies ) incorporation. Spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the shore where other ships fire in the condition. ) was not something that was reasonably unforeseeable result Morts continued to work, takin… “ the old soldier’s 3. And to vessels moored nearby hole and caused an explosion be responsible for the next time I comment find if! Imprisonment ' significant number of links constituting the chain agreeing to the particulars but the genus means. As to the use of cookies carelessly allowed furnace oil ( also referred to as oil. Accident to find out if the line of … Negligence—Remoteness—The Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in 1951! Cookie settings of cookies debris became embroiled in the oil the owners of the,... Public policy requires it, e.g the ship into the Sydney Harbour of law... About 200 meters away damage which an ordinary person would be liable for the probable consequences his... The foreseeability is not liable boys, seriously injuring him Smith v Brain! Number of links constituting the chain negligently spilled oil over the water more links, the likely... The courts can award damages based on different lawyering barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC What! Law case, which negligently spilled oil over the water and the Wagon Mound.. 422–423: a defendant can not be held liable for the next time I comment actually sustained in foreseeable... Directly would conflict with the welding as it was held that D ( Wagon Mound ) was not: is. On which this case: a defendant can not be held liable for the damage but! Full extent of the claimant may demonstrate some fault negligence on the …!