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