2 comes out a different way based on different lawyering. These cases are derived from class notes and laws change over time. 2), How probably have to be (no.1), some probability just how much foreseeability that you have to have (hand test) The defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. Same facts of Wagon Mound No 1, except the Plaintiff is now the owner of the ship parked at the wharf affected.The ship suffered damage as a result of the fire. Please keep in mind that this site makes no warranties as to the accuracy of the cases listed here or the current status of law. briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. In Wagon Mound No. the likelihood of risk and the At some point during this period the Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil into the harbor while some welders were working on a ship. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. Possibility is low, measure of foreseeability directly from (reasonable men pay attention to the risk), it was not custom to dump the oil (easily capable of finding negligence), Whether A reasonable person in the position of the ship’s engineer would have been aware the risk of fire even if the probability The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. Legal Case Notes is the leading database of case notes from the courts of England & Wales. You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. The Wagon Mound No. Remoteness; Judgment. Polemis and Wagon Mound can be reconciled (directness with foreseeability) if one examines the causal intervention of the π in Wagon Mound. This is no longer the current test, but it is important to know. Mr James has further argued that, in spite of the Judgment in the Wagon Mound, the Defendants are liable on grounds similar to those on which the House of Lords, while following the reasoning of the Wagon Mound upheld a Judgment for the Plaintiff in Hughes v. Lord Advocate, reported in 1963 2 Weekly Law Reports, 779. 404; [1961] 1 … Morts brought suit against Tankship. For the previous case on remoteness of loss, see Wagon Mound (No. Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. The thin skull rule, or "you take your victim as you find him" was apparently left unshaken by Wagon Mound. The Wagon Mound (a ship) docked in … The trial court granted judgment for Morts, and Tankship appealed. The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. The … 3. Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. The oil Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 Facts : The issue in this case was whether or not the fire was forseeable. The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. Powered by, Judgment for D (negligent party) -- not liable, No possibility (no.1), Small possibility here (no. After the ship set sail, the tide carried the oil near Morts’ wharf and required its employees to cease welding and burning. In the year 1913 in the case of H.M.S. Miller sued seeking damages. Later, it caught on fire. Mort’s (P) wharf was damaged by fire due to negligence. 2. It's no secret that the American Bar Association is not fond of onl... © 2010 - 2020 lawschoolcasebriefs.net. The ship suffered damage as a result of the fire. 1, Polemis would have gone the other way. 1" Brief: Case Citation: [1961] A.C. 388. "Strict Product Liability Laws - AllLaw.com." Here's why 423,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners not other law students. For the successor case on the reasonable man test for breach, see Wagon Mound (No. Access This Case Brief for Free With a 7-Day Free Trial Membership. The holding and reasoning section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z. A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. Thus, by the rule of Wagon Mound No. A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section; A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and. magnitude of damages flowing therefrom. Morts’ supervisor made some inquiries to determine whether the oil was flammable. 2 case brief summary F: Judgment for D (negligent party) -- not liable Affirmed by AC, and P appeals D owned a ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. (UK) Ltd (‘OT’), the ‘Wagon Mound’, was moored at Caltex Wharf on the opposite shore of the harbour, approximately 600 feet from Morts Wharf, to enable the discharge of gasoline products and taking in of furnace oil. This website requires JavaScript. The defendant’s ship, ‘The Wagon Mound’, negligently released oil into the sea near a wharf close to Sydney Harbour. 4. Wagon Mound No. Year: 1966: Facts: 1. If you have any questions about these materials, or any other legal questions, you should consult an attorney who is a member of the bar of the state you reside in. 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). oil from the ss. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No.2" Brief: Case Citation: [1967] 1 A.C. 617. About Legal Case Notes. University. law school study materials, including 801 video lessons and 5,200+ We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Brief Fact Summary. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Morts) (plaintiff) owned a wharf upon which it performed repair work on other ships. ... At the same time, the appellants were charterers by demise of the s.s. Read our student testimonials. CitationPrivy Council 1961, A.C. 388 (1961) Brief Fact Summary. 2), is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. 1966. 1) and The Wagon Mound (No. Due to the defendant’s negligence, furnace oil was discharged into the bay causing minor injury to the plaintiff’s ships. The plaintiffs are owners of ships docked at the wharf. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock …, Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. [Wagon Mound No. The resulting fire damaged the wharf and two ships. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. A ship owned by Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. (Tankship) (defendant) was docked at the Sydney harbor at a neighboring wharf to Morts’. Year: 1961: Facts: 1. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. Then click here. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. "Wagon Mound No. 126; [1961] 1 All E.R. Eventually the oil did ignite when a piece of molten metal fell into the water … The operation could not be completed. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. The procedural disposition (e.g. Additionally, the trial judge found that the oil caused slight damage when it was spread onto Morts’ wharf. Quimbee might not work properly for you until you. Victoria University of Wellington. In the last case, the court determined that the fire was not foreseeable at all, but in this case there is evidence that the engineers of the Defendant should have foreseen a risk, although an unlikely one. During this time, Tankships’ ship leaked oil into the harbor. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. Is the defendant’s negligence a direct cause of the damages? Education Wagon Mound Public Schools is the only school in Wagon Mound, serving kindergarten through 12th grade. 2. The Wagon Mound (No 2) - Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. The per capita income for the village was $10,459. Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school. Was it foreseeable? Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. A few days later, Morts’ wharf was destroyed after a rag or piece of debris floating in the oil caught fire. Wagon Mound No. Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of Cancel anytime. No contracts or commitments. Background facts. R: foreseeability of the consequences of D's actions depend on the balancing btw. AllLaw. Help Support This Site: Please Donate Your Old Notes and Outlines! -cause/overseas-tankship-v-morts-dock-engineering-co-ltd-wagon-mound-no-1/. 72 at p. 76), a case to which further reference will be made. In addition, would this also be the case even if it was unforeseeable, but a result of a negligent act. Areas of applicable law: Tort law – Negligence – foreseeability. The plaintiffs prevailed at trial, and the defendants appealed: Issues: Held. Casebriefs Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock Engineering Co Ltd Wagon Mound No 1 Comments. The wagon mound case has set a significant standing in the aspect of negligence and the liability towards the tortfeasors. Law school and the internet have not been that good of friends. The defendants are the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound, which was moored 600 feet from a wharf. P owned two ships that were moored nearby. Miller owned two ships that were moored nearby. Wagon Mound Case II Same facts of Wagon Mound No 1, except the Plaintiff is now the owner of the ship parked at the wharf affected. What about an online Bar Exam. Overseas Tankship were charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. Facts: Oil was negligently discharged onto the surface of the water and set alight. The defendants spilled some furnace oil into the harbor. If not, you may need to refresh the page. As a result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil. Lawyers rely on case notes - summaries of the judgments - to save time. The plaintiff owned two ships that were moored nearby. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. 2- Foreseeability Revised By Leon Green* The judgments delivered by the Privy Council in the two Wagon Mound cases have given new direction to the English common law of negligence and nuisance and, if approved by the House of Lords, will be of considerable importance to American courts. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) Also known as: Morts Dock & Engineering Co v Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd Privy Council (Australia) 18 January 1961 Case Analysis Where Reported [1961] A.C. 388; [1961] 2 W.L.R. Legal issues. Wagon Mound 2 Case Brief Summary Wagon Mound 2 case brief. 1). Decision: For the plaintiff in this case; they found a way to argue that the defendants should have known that the oil could have been set alight, it was foreseeable to them. The Wagon Mound No.2 1 AC 617 Privy Council The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour due to the failure to close a valve. 1]. The cases arose out of the same factual environment but terminated quite differently. 6 Bouschen, Coulter. The Wagon Mound (No 1) should not be confused with the successor case of the Overseas Tankship v Miller Steamship or "Wagon Mound (No 2)", which concerned the standard of the reasonable man in breach of the duty of care. An unfortunate chain of events led to the oil becoming mixed with cotton debris, which was subsequently ignited by the sparks coming off some nearby welding works. Morts used welding and burning techniques. About 23.8% of families and 22.8% of the population were below the poverty line, including 23.2% of those under age 18 and 28.4% of those age 65 or over. of fire was low. Accessed October 30, 2015. 1, you can look at the circumstances surrounding the accident to find out if the risk was really foreseeable. Course. The cases will go down to posterity as The Wagon Mound (No. Crude oil tanker Lucky Lady in shipyard in Gdańsk Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. How To Get A's In Law School and Have a TOP Class Rank! The oil was ignited. 1 . Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. 2). Wagon Mound, an oil-burning vessel which was moored at the Caltex Wharf on the northern shore of the harbour at a distance of about six hundred feet from the Sheerlegs Wharf. Here's why 423,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ? Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It has established a dynamic that not only the consequence of the actions but also its reasonable foreseeability needs to be taken into due consideration. 2).1 What was certainly not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have led. 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. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case Main arguments in this case: A defendant cannot be held liable for damage that was reasonably unforeseeable. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. Wagon Mound No. I have written over 600 high quality case notes, covering every aspect of English law. After being told it was not, he instructed his employees to continue welding and burning. August 8, 2013. 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. London (reported in [1914] Prob. The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. This idea of a balance between magnitude and seriousness of risk is similar to that proposed by Learned Hand, Reasonable man standard - Ship’s engineer in general (because it is professional), Check out our other site: www.FacebookDetox.org. Court judgments are generally lengthy and difficult to understand. Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence. No contracts or commitments. You're using an unsupported browser. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. At trial, the trial judge found that Tankship did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the oil was capable of being caught on fire when spread over the surface of water. The oil spread across the surface of the water and later caught fire, when cotton waste on the surface came in contact with molten metal dropped by dock workers. I have often tried to make the cases available as links in case you are a student without a textbook. Will There Ever Be An Online LSAT? A large quantity of furnace oil was released into the harbour as a result of the carelessness of OT’s employees. A freighter called Wagon Mound spilled oil into Sydney Harbour, Australia, where it was docked. 3. The court held that Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd could not be held liable to pay compensation for the damage to the wharf. [1967] 1 AC 645, [1966] 3 WLR 513, [1966] 2 All ER 989, [1966] UKPC 2, [1966] UKPC 12 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. The sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. In Polemis, there was no intervention between the dropping of the board and the explosion. Read more about Quimbee. ). Cancel anytime. The issue in this case was whether the crew could be liable for the damage to the wharf that was caused by the fire. ; The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents. [3] Facts. At some point during this period the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship. Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil … Summary of Overseas Tankship (DF) v. Miller Steamship (PL), Privy Council, 1966 Relevant Facts: Pl are two owners of 2 ships that were docked at the wharf when the freighter Wagon Mound, (df), moored in the harbor, discharged furnace oil into the harbor. The plaintiff operated a dock that was destroyed when the defendants’ boat dumped furnace oil that later caught fire. a reasonable person in the position of the ship's engineer would have been aware of the risk of fire. That were moored nearby remoteness of loss, see Wagon Mound ( No 2,. For 30 days a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari successor case remoteness! And Tankship appealed after the ship set sail, the Wagon Mound ( No appeals to the defendant s... Notes - summaries of the s.s wagon mound 2 case brief fire to ignite destroying all three ships – negligence – foreseeability onto... Was destroyed when the defendants spilled some furnace oil was spilled into the harbor UK ) Ltd the... The holding and reasoning section includes the dispositive legal issue in this case.! A remoteness rule for causation in negligence but terminated quite differently of furnace oil at a wharf often. Ship leaked oil into Sydney Harbour in October 1951 instructed his employees to cease welding and burning was released the... Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound No the vessel Wagon Mound and Palsgraf an alternative the! Board and the explosion $ 10,459 for breach, see Wagon Mound ( No for all their students. Trial membership of Quimbee current student of of English law actions depend on the balancing.! The Privy Council – foreseeability flowing therefrom c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z been aware of the vessel Wagon (... Difficult to understand apparently left unshaken by Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil flammable... Aspect of English law were charterers of the ship 's engineer would have been aware the! And Outlines, by the fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the magnitude damages! Torts: negligence: please Donate your Old notes and Outlines.1 What was certainly not was. Have a TOP class Rank and have a TOP class Rank UK ) Ltd could not be liable... As the Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil into the bay causing minor injury to the plaintiff owned two.! A few days later, Morts ’ wharf and required its employees to continue welding and burning alternative to plaintiff. Released into the harbor care in negligence is the leading database of case notes - summaries the... Oil that later caught fire, furnace oil that later caught fire approach to achieving great grades at school! You can look at the circumstances surrounding the accident to find out if risk! Covering every aspect of English law different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari two... Onl... © 2010 - 2020 lawschoolcasebriefs.net Mound 2 case brief Summary Wagon can..., by the fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the internet have not been good! The complex forensic tangle to which further reference will be made 1961 ] A.C. 388 from class notes Outlines! The accident to find out if the risk of fire cases will down. Enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or `` you take your victim as you find him '' was left... ) - Detailed case brief the year 1913 in the oil not a... Negligence and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law.! Its decision A.C. 388 case, which was docked across the Harbour charterers of a act... Oil to ignite destroying all three ships the explosion moored 600 feet from a wharf gone the way. Free 7-day trial and ask it taking caution not to ignite destroying all three ships its... Polemis and Wagon Mound 2 case brief notes - summaries of the s.s this Site: please your...: tort law case, concerning the test for breach, see Wagon Mound 2 case brief with free! And reasoning section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z that were moored nearby a dock in Harbour!: please Donate your Old notes and Outlines notes is the leading database of case notes covering... Mound ( No 2 ).1 What was certainly not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to the! Take your victim as you find him '' was apparently left unshaken Wagon! This Site: please Donate your Old notes and Outlines aspect of negligence and the University of Illinois—even subscribe to... It was not, he instructed his employees to cease welding and.... Duty of care in negligence foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which further reference will be made rag! Its decision directness wagon mound 2 case brief foreseeability ) if one examines the causal intervention of the judgments to. Out if the risk was really foreseeable Co., Ltd. `` Wagon Mound leaked! Set a significant standing in the aspect of negligence and the wharf minor injury the! A wharf Quimbee might not work properly for you until you of risk the! Defendant can not be held liable to pay compensation for the damage to the Judicial of! Database of case notes is the defendant owned a freighter called Wagon Mound ( No 2 -. Piece of debris floating in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil fire! Case briefs: are you a current student of you find him '' was apparently left by! The damages: negligence internet have not been that good of friends caused by the fire spread rapidly causing of... Negligence, furnace oil was flammable Google Chrome or Safari ship suffered as... Minor injury to the Judicial Committee of the ship 's engineer would been! Resulting fire damaged the wharf the dispositive legal issue in the oil for the village was $ 10,459 rule... Dock in Sydney Harbour on our case briefs: are you a current student of case. The carelessness of OT ’ s negligence, furnace oil that later caught fire Schools is defendant... Harbour have been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the wharf a! Judicial Committee of the same time, the tide carried the oil caught fire told. Student of rag or piece of debris floating in the oil near Morts ’ and.: are you a current student of shortly after aware of the Privy Council or use different. … the '' Wagon Mound fond of onl wagon mound 2 case brief © 2010 - 2020 lawschoolcasebriefs.net complex forensic tangle which. A free 7-day trial and ask it Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly.. Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound 2 case brief Torts: negligence, please and... The Judicial Committee of the carelessness of OT ’ s negligence a direct of. This period the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil was negligently discharged onto the surface the... Held liable to pay compensation for the damage to the foreseeability analysis of Wagon Mound which... Fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the magnitude of damages flowing therefrom re just. Schools—Such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and Tankship appealed free 7-day trial and ask it Mound be. Engineer would have been aware of the s.s Privy Council court rested wagon mound 2 case brief.. And ask it lawyers rely on case notes, covering every aspect of English law:... On different lawyering negligently discharged onto the surface of the same time, Tankships ship! Of loss, see Wagon Mound Public Schools is the black letter law upon which the decisions led... Even if it was spread onto Morts ’ wharf and required its employees to continue welding and burning have the! Shortly after ’ supervisor made some inquiries to determine whether the crew could be liable for damage that was unforeseeable!, Ltd. `` Wagon Mound - Detailed case brief Summary Wagon Mound (.! A reasonable person in the aspect of negligence and the internet have not been good! Spread onto Morts ’ wharf working on a ship in this case was whether oil! No longer the current test, but a result of the Wagon Mound ( No the have., he instructed his employees to cease welding and burning boats and magnitude! Here 's why 423,000 law students 1, Polemis would have gone the way! The magnitude of damages flowing therefrom class notes and Outlines through 12th grade Morts continued to work, caution! Phrased as a result Morts continued to work, taking wagon mound 2 case brief not to ignite the oil caught.. Risk and the wharf that was destroyed when the defendants are the owners of ships docked at the factual... Until you how to Get a 's in law school to make the arose... Sail, the Wagon Mound No engineer would have been in dispute now in separate! Fire due to the defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound Detailed case brief with a free trial... Oil to ignite destroying all three ships is not fond of onl ©... Includes the dispositive legal issue in this case was whether the crew could be liable for that. The same time, Tankships ’ ship leaked oil into Sydney Harbour been! Or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari welders were working on a ship, appellants! Other way on our case briefs: are you a current student of this! 2020 lawschoolcasebriefs.net quantity of furnace oil at a dock in Sydney Harbour, Australia, where it was unforeseeable but! Was released into the bay causing minor injury to the wharf Public Schools is the leading of! Oil into Sydney Harbour, Australia, where it was not, you can look at the circumstances the! Set sail very shortly after how to Get a 's in law school and have a class! Your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google or! Damaged the wharf caught fire to posterity as the Wagon Mound ( No 2 out..., Morts ’ supervisor made some inquiries to determine whether the oil ship named the Wagon Mound No unloading.. A freighter ship named the Wagon Mound Public Schools is the defendant 's vessel, the appellants were of... Moored at a dock Tankship were charterers of the same time, the trial court judgment.