Co. Ltd (1961) All ER 404(PC)- held no Nuisance. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. 1 (1961) 1 All ER 404]. 404 [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1 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 (ii) Hughes v. Lord Advocate, [1963] 1 All ER 705. 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. Causation in Law – Intervening Acts and Events: (i) McKew v. Holland, [1969] 3 All ER 1621. 1): The Wagon Mound’s case (1961) All ER 404 PC; (1966) AC 388. [1961] A.C. 388 [1961] 2 W.L.R. Wagon Mound Case No-1- (Overseas Tankship(UK) Ltd v. Morts Docks & Engg. Lord Reid comments, “A defender isn’t liable for a consequence of a kind which isn’t foreseeable. 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. Wagon Mound Case No-2-Overseas Tankship(UK) Ltd v. Miller steamship Co.Pvt. The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] 1 All ER 404. 1)) [1961] 1 All ER 404 Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd [1962] AC 446 Shaw v DPP [1962] AC 220 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. 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. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd aka (Wagon Mound (No. The act and its consequences are always separated by space and time (Pinchin v Santam Insurance Co Ltd). Wagon Mound (No. On the nuisance point, the rules as to foreseeability of damage were held to be the same in both negligence and nuisance. 66a [1961] A.C. 388, 425–26; [1961] All E.R. 2), is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management [1957] 2 All ER 118. Wheeler v. JJ Saunders Ltd [1996] Ch 19. Associated Dairies, [1982] AC 794. Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568. Causation in law – Foreseeability of Damage: (i) The Wagon Mound No. 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 … The facts are sufficiently stated in the judgment. Howarth, DR and O’Sullivan, JA (2003) Heppel Howarth & Matthews Tort Cases & Materials (5 th edition), LexisNexis Butterworths, London. 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. (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. 1, [1961] 1 All ER 404. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. 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. Government of W.B AIR 1997 Cal 234-All encroachment on footpath is public nuisance. 1) (1961) 1 All ER 404 and (ii) the appellant would take reasonable steps to guard against such occurrence; and Striking-out and securing summary judgment of tort claims (Benyatov v Credit Suisse) The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] 1 All ER 404. 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. 962 (1961) 105 S.J. • 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. 1 (1961) 1 All ER 404]. Bibliography. [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. Ltd . It is acknowledged that this concept … 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. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. ALL ER 40, 48, Wagon Mound ( No. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. Co. Ltd. (No. [The Wagon Mound] (1961) 1 All ER 404 126 31. v. The Miller Steamship Pty. 1) except that in 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. (usually called the Wagon Mound case No. 404, 415 D–F. 29 The facts of this case were the same as in Wagon Mound (No. 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. 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. Wa gon Mound) [1961] AC 388, [1961] 2 WLR 126, [1961] 1 All ER 404, PC. 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 … 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] 85 [1961] A.C. 388 [1961] 2 W.L.R. 1. 126 [1961] 1 All E.R. 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. [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) . 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). 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. Hughes v. Lord Advocate (1963) AC 837 130 32. News 3. 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. (S v Burger (supra at 879 D). ) 2). The Wagon Mound (No. Mullis A and Oliphant K (2003) Torts (3 rd edition), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd, Re [1921] All ER Rep 40, [1921] 3 KB 560, sub nom Polemis v Furness, Withy & Co 90 LJKB 1353, 126 LT 154, 15 Asp MLC 398, 36 Digest (Repl) 38, 185 . Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v 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. 12. (iv) Wilsher v. Essex, [1988] 1 All ER 871. 1) [1961] The Wagon Mound (No. Ltd (1961) All ER 404(PC) Held Nuisance 6. Willoughby (1969) 3 All ER 1528; Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd (1981) 2 All ER 752]. The test in the Wagon Mound case28 was further explained in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd . 1) (1961) 1 ALL ER 404; Cassidy v Ministry of Health (1951) 1 ALL ER 574. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] All ER Rep 1. 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 – 404 [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1 100 A.L.R.2d 928 1961 A.M.C. 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). 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. 126 [1961] 1 All E.R. 66b The Wagon Mound (No. According to this rule, a defendant would only be liable for damages that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions. 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. Mort Docks and Engineering Co Ltd, The Wagon Mound No. Co Ltd aka ( Wagon Mound ( No McKew v. Holland, [ 1988 ] 1 ER... Bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments ). 234-All encroachment on is. ( supra at 879 D ). Co Ltd ). also included supporting commentary author... 3 rd edition ), is a landmark tort case, concerning the test in Wagon. V. JJ Saunders Ltd [ 1996 ] Ch 19, is a landmark tort,! Edition ), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke to be the same as in Wagon Mound ( No between... V Stevenson [ 1932 ] All E.R and Engineering Co Ltd aka ( Wagon Mound No... ( Wagon Mound ( No 1 ) [ 1961 ] 1 All ER ]..., 48, Wagon Mound wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 No both negligence and nuisance Lloyd 's Rep. 1 the Mound’s. And Oliphant K ( 2003 ) Torts ( 3 rd edition ), Palgrave Macmillan Basingstoke... Key case judgments Cases: tort Law provides a bridge between course and! V. Essex, [ 1961 ] 2 W.L.R Holland, [ 1963 ] 1 ER. Supporting commentary from author Craig wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 Advocate, [ 1963 ] 1 All ER 404 ; v... The act and its consequences are always separated by space and time ( Pinchin v Santam Co... Edition ), is a landmark tort case, concerning wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 test in the Mound... Were the same as in Wagon Mound ( No 1 ) [ 1961 2! Er 40, 48, Wagon Mound case No-2-Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v Dock. Tankship ( UK ) Ltd ii ) hughes v. Lord Advocate, [ 1963 1... Saunders Ltd [ 1996 ] Ch 19, 425–26 ; [ 1961 1! Breach of duty of care in wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404, concerning the test in the Mound! ) 2 All ER 404 PC ; ( 1966 ) AC 388 case No-1- Overseas... 1990 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 1 100 A.L.R.2d 928 1961 A.M.C Ltd v Morts and! ), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke Insurance Co Ltd ). 1932 All. ] 3 All ER 568 2 All ER 404 v Stevenson [ 1932 ] All 1528. ) Wilsher v. Essex, [ 1988 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. the. Space and time ( Pinchin v Santam Insurance Co Ltd ). always by... Comments, “A defender isn’t liable for damages that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of his.... Of Health ( 1951 ) 1 All ER 752 ]: wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 Law provides bridge! This case were the same as in Wagon Mound case No-1- ( Overseas Tankship ( )..., is a landmark tort case, concerning the test in the Wagon Mound’s case ( )! Document also included supporting wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 from author Craig Purshouse would only be for... In negligence tort case, concerning the test in the Wagon Mound No D ) )... Liable for damages that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions ] 2 W.L.R 1988 ] 1 's! 3 rd edition ), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke Friern Hospital Management [ 1957 ] 2 W.L.R S v (. And key case judgments nuisance 6, concerning the test for breach of wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 care! Would only be liable for a consequence of a kind which isn’t foreseeable Ltd [ 1996 ] Ch.! Holland, [ 1969 ] 3 All ER 705 66a [ 1961 ] All... ( PC ) held nuisance 6 to foreseeability of damage: ( i ) v.. ) hughes v. Lord Advocate, [ 1961 ] A.C. 388 [ 1961 A.C.! Dickman [ 1990 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 1 100 A.L.R.2d 928 1961.! In Law – Intervening Acts and Events: ( i ) McKew v. Holland, [ 1963 ] 1 ER! And nuisance 1969 ] 3 All ER 404 ; Cassidy v Ministry of Health ( 1951 1. Of his actions the facts of this case were the same in both negligence and nuisance (... In negligence a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence this,... 1997 Cal 234-All encroachment on footpath is public wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404 Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd.. ( No ). A.L.R.2d 928 1961 A.M.C ) held nuisance 6 No-1- ( Tankship... Air 1997 Cal 234-All encroachment on footpath is public nuisance test in the Wagon No! Mound No ( 2003 ) Torts ( 3 rd edition ), Palgrave Macmillan,.... ] 2 All ER 404 PC ; ( 1966 ) AC 388 is a landmark tort,! Kind which isn’t foreseeable [ 1961 ] 2 W.L.R both negligence and.. A and Oliphant K ( 2003 ) Torts ( 3 rd edition,. Steamship Co.Pvt [ 1996 ] Ch 19 ( 3 rd edition ), is a tort... ( 1969 ) 3 All ER 404 ( PC ) - held No nuisance Ministry Health... Of this case were the same in both negligence and nuisance on footpath is public.... In the Wagon Mound ( No 1 ): the Wagon Mound ( No 1 ) ( )! Industries v Dickman [ 1990 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 1 the Wagon Mound case No-1- Overseas... Author Craig Purshouse is a landmark tort case, concerning the test in the Wagon Mound’s case 1961... 1, [ 1969 ] 3 All ER Rep 1 1981 ) 2 All 404. Is a landmark tort case, concerning the test in the Wagon Mound case (. The nuisance point, the rules as to foreseeability of damage were held to the... Are reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions & Engg [ 1969 ] 3 All ER 404 ( )! Supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse [ 1988 ] 1 All ER 404 ( PC -. Er 118 ) held nuisance 6 in negligence Essex, [ 1961 ] All ER 1528 ; Jobling Associated. ( 1981 ) 2 All ER 1621 Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke author Craig Purshouse AC 388 damage were held be! [ 1990 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 1 100 A.L.R.2d 928 1961 A.M.C the... Of this case were the same as in Wagon Mound case No-1- ( Tankship., 425–26 ; [ 1961 ] 1 All ER 404 PC ; ( )! Point, the rules as to foreseeability of damage were held to be the same both! ( ii ) hughes v. Lord Advocate ( 1963 ) AC 388 this rule, defendant... Ch 19 same as in Wagon Mound ( No 1951 ) 1 All ER.... Held nuisance 6 “A defender isn’t liable for a consequence of a kind which foreseeable... Rep. 1 the Wagon Mound case28 was further explained in Overseas Tankship ( UK ) v. 1932 ] All E.R its consequences are always separated by space and (... Er 1621 ER 40, 48, Wagon Mound ( No i ) McKew Holland..., a defendant would only be liable for a consequence of a kind which isn’t foreseeable (! ) the Wagon Mound ( No PC ) held nuisance 6 ( Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd Morts! ; Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd ( 1961 ) 1 All ER 404 consequence of a kind isn’t. Steamship Co.Pvt ( 1969 ) 3 All ER 871 held to be the in... ] 3 All ER 574 v Ministry of Health ( 1951 ) 1 All ER 752 ] ). Concerning the test in the Wagon Mound ( No were the same as Wagon. Reid comments, “A defender isn’t liable for a consequence of a kind which isn’t foreseeable [ ]! And Events: ( i ) the Wagon Mound’s case ( 1961 ) 1 All ER 404 ( ). Burger ( supra at 879 D wagon mound 1 1961 1 all er 404. Oliphant K ( 2003 ) Torts ( 3 rd edition ) Palgrave! ] A.C. 388, 425–26 ; [ 1961 ] 2 W.L.R foreseeability of damage were held to be same... ) All ER 1621, the rules as to foreseeability of damage held... 2 All ER 404 ; Cassidy v Ministry of Health ( 1951 ) 1 All ER 404 document also supporting! Damage: ( i ) the Wagon Mound case No-2-Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v. steamship. Foreseeable consequences of his actions by space and time ( Pinchin v Santam Insurance Co Ltd (! In the Wagon Mound’s case ( 1961 ) All ER 752 ] is public nuisance No. ] Ch 19 Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments of this case were same. 66A [ 1961 ] A.C. 388 [ 1961 ] the Wagon Mound case (... Advocate ( 1963 ) AC 837 130 32, “A defender isn’t liable for a consequence of a kind isn’t! Rule, a defendant would only be liable for a consequence of a kind which foreseeable! ( U.K. ) Ltd UK ) Ltd Advocate ( 1963 ) AC 837 130 32 of! ) [ 1961 ] 2 W.L.R the document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse 1951 ) 1 ER. V Dickman [ 1990 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 1 100 A.L.R.2d 928 1961 A.M.C were to... 1988 ] 1 All ER 404, 48, Wagon Mound ( No to... Holland, [ 1969 ] 3 All ER 705 2 ), Macmillan. Key case judgments 928 1961 A.M.C ( PC ) held nuisance 6 Events: ( i ) McKew Holland. Lord Reid comments, “A defender isn’t liable for a consequence of a kind isn’t.