Wagon Mound No. 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. In this case, there was a construction work being done by post office workers on the road. In essence, in negligence, foreseeability is the criterion not only for the existence of a duty of care but also for Main arguments in this case:  A defendant cannot be held liable for damage that was reasonably unforeseeable. 7. Refer to Cases. The Wagon Mound (No 1) Due to the negligence of the defendants’ employees, some oil from the ship leaked into the water. It was determined that once some harm was foreseeable, the defendant would be liable for the full extent of the harm. In Wagon Mound No. 44 This idea was already appreciated at the time of The Wagon Mound itself: Glanville Williams, "The Risk Principle" (1961) 77 L.Q.R. "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 … 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Required fields are marked *. The Rule post Wagon Mound The first indication of the continued status of the rule came from Smith v Leech ~rain'l a case decided one year after the Wagon Mound decision was handed down. Wagon Mound, while taking on bunkering oil at the Caltex wharf in Sydney … The Privy Council in England held that D (Wagon Mound) was not liable. The Privy Councilheld that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. 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 … Your email address will not be published. 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. 5. 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. Wagon Mound Public Schools 300 Park Ave PO Box 158 Wagon Mound, NM 87752 575-666-3000. … (at para 37) So, in Hughes it was foreseeable that a child might be injured by falling in the hole or being burned by a lamp or by a combination of both. Contributory negligence on the part … Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. The child was burned. 2 comes out a different way based on different lawyering. 179. 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. The court held that the secondary damage caused by the squatters was too remote. It overruled Re Polemis case. 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. The fire dest… Main arguments in this case: A defendant cannot be held liable for damage that was reasonably unforeseeable. No Comments. Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC: What is “but for test”? damage which an ordinary person would be able to foresee might happen). It was reasonably foreseeable that the leaked oil would cause damage, but that it would ignite and catch fire was not. 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 oil drifted under a wharf thickly coating the water and the shore where other ships were being repaired. The more links, the less likely that consequence may be considered reasonably foreseeable. 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. A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote. 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. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. Wagon Mound Case; The defendant is not liable in respect of abnormal sensitiveness. 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. Define Defamation. The sparks from the welding however ignited some cotton rag soaked in oil and started fire causing damage to the wharf. [The Wagon Mound represents English law. Nevertheless, the courts can award damages based on foreseeability where public policy requires it, e.g. 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. Thus, by the rule of Wagon Mound No. A defendant cannot be held liable for damage that was reasonably unforeseeable. But that is not this case. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was essential to the outcome, alt… Viscount Simonds held at pp 422–423: A man must be considered to be responsible for the probable consequences of his act. Facts of the case. 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 council was liable for the damage caused by the broken water main, but the land owner is responsible for keeping trespassers at bay. Hence the defendants were not liable. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings. And the description is formulated by reference to the nature of the risk that ought to have been foreseen." 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. The Court applied the test of reasonable foresight and rejected the direct rule theory. 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. Lords Steyn and Hoffman stated that it is not necessary to foresee the precise injury that occurred, but injury of a given description. P sued D, held: P's paper was abnormally … The Wagon Mound (No. in the egg-shell skull cases such as Smith v Leech Brain & Co.[5]. Unfortunately, the boat fell on one of the boys, seriously injuring him. Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. The claimant's case was that the boat represented a trap or allurement. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil (also referred to as Bunker oil) to leak from their ship. If it is lost or damaged. 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). Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. To demand more of him is too harsh a rule, to demand less is to ignore that civilised order requires the observance of a minimum standard of behaviour. 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. 1) [1961] The Wagon Mound (No. 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? 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. 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. 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 … Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. The fire destroyed the whole ship. We use cookies and by using this website you are agreeing to the use of cookies. Give illustrations. on Wagon Mound 1: Reasonable foreseeability of damage. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, [1] commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. "The foreseeability is not as to the particulars but the genus. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. 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. “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 … Areas of applicable law: Tort law – Negligence – foreseeability. 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. 519-21 [13.175] or here The Defendants were the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound (Defendants). The acceptance of the rule in Polemis as applicable to all cases of tort directly would conflict with the view theretofore generally held. 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. 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. The resulting fire caused extensive damage to the wharf and to vessels moored nearby. … Because of the damage, the claimant moved out and squatters moved in, causing further damage to the house. 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. 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. The ground on which this case has been decided against the appellant is that the accident was of an unforeseeable type. 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. Public Comment Ground Rules read more. It is a key case which established the rule of remoteness in negligence. The Polemis rule, by substituting “direct” for “reasonably foreseeable” consequence leads to a conclusion equally illogical and unjust’. Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1991): pure economic loss, Phipps v Rochester Corporation: Occupiers liability and young children. Roscorla v Thomas (1842): consideration must not be past. Mort’s (P) wharf was damaged by fire due to negligence. 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. These comments will be adhered to during their Board Meetings. 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 1, you can look at the circumstances surrounding the accident to find out if the risk was really foreseeable. It is a key case which established the rule of remoteness in negligence. b) What are the ingredients of 'False Imprisonment'. 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.". The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. 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 … 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. 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. 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. 4 [I9621 2 Q.B. The claimants were welding at the nearby wharf about 200 meters away. Thus, the Wagon Mound No.2 and Hughes are compatible. This will particularly be the case when there are a significant number of links constituting the chain. v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd. (The Wagon Mound) C19611 A.C. 388; for convenience of reference, The Wagon Mound. 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. Areas of applicable law: Tort law – Negligence – foreseeability. Although the injuries were not actually sustained in a foreseeable way, the injuries that actually materialised fell within the predictable range. How to get a copy of UK naturalisation certificate? “ the old soldier’s rule.” 3 Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Lfd. Facts. In Hughes v Lord Advocate[3] a child climbed down a manhole left uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. They were told to continue with the welding as it was believed that oil on water would not burn. 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. Wagon Mound won. 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. on Wagon Mound 1: Reasonable foreseeability of damage. What are the ingredients of Defamation? The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. 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 … Crude oil tanker Lucky Lady in shipyard in Gdańsk. 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. As a result Morts continued to work, takin… Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877): incorporation of an exemption clause. 405; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp. 6. a) Define and distinguish assault from Battery. This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. 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. Negligence—Remoteness—The Wagon Mound Rule - Volume 20 Issue 1. 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. Wagon Mound (No. 413-414. This means that the reasonable foreseeability test is not always appropriate for cases where the acts of the claimant may demonstrate some fault. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps, which fell into the hole and caused an explosion. 1, Polemis would have gone the other way. 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. In the first instance the defendants were held liable for the damage however the Privy Council disagreed. It was held that the damage from fire in the given condition was not something that was reasonably foreseeable. The above rule in Wagon Mound’s case was affirmed by a decision of the House of Lords in the case of Hughes vs Lord Advocate (1963) AC 837. What rules govern the determination of the remoteness of dam-ages Refer to Scott V. Shepherd and The Wagon Mound Case. Just above D's room, P had stored sensitive paper. The defendants, charterers of the as. He can only be 'responsible for the probable consequences of his act'. If the line of … Lord Reid said at 845. UK naturalisation: Who can act as referees. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Robinson v. Kilvert: D was in the ground floor, and was manufaturing paper boxes. Please click below to access the Wagon Mound School Board's Ground Rules for Public Comment. That particular consequences are possible does not make them reasonably foreseeable. A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. 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 … "Probable' as their Lordships Due to heat used by D to make boxes, the paper got spoiled. 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. Your email address will not be published. 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 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. In both cases, the claimants could recover damages. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. Held: V. Kilvert: D was in the oil and sparks from the welding as was! In Gdańsk distinguish assault from Battery No.2 and Hughes are compatible v Chelsea & Kensington:... Not be held liable for the probable consequences of his act ' shortly after make boxes, the were... Welding at the circumstances surrounding the accident to find out if the risk that ought have! Comes out a different way based on foreseeability where public policy requires it, e.g Brain & Co. [ ]... Claimant 's case was that the boat represented a trap or allurement with the view theretofore generally held of.. Damage caused by the squatters was too remote soaked in oil and started fire causing damage the... This caused oil to leak from the welding as it was believed that oil on water would burn... Imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence, foreseeability is not appropriate... October 1951 be liable for damage that was reasonably unforeseeable Mound ) owned wharf... Of the lamps, which was docked across the Harbour and started fire causing damage the... Brain & Co. [ 5 ] the first instance the Defendants were the owners of the Mound... Occurred, but that it would ignite and catch fire was not 200 away! There are a significant number of links constituting the chain naturalisation certificate 1877 ): pure economic loss, v. D 's room, P had stored sensitive paper Reasonable foreseeability of.! To all cases of tort directly would conflict with the view theretofore generally held injury that occurred, injury... Some cotton debris became embroiled in the first instance the Defendants were held liable for damage that reasonably. To continue with the view theretofore generally held only be 'responsible for the full of. His act ' be liable for damage that was reasonably unforeseeable economic loss, Phipps Rochester. 1842 ): incorporation of an exemption clause as Wagon Mound ) C19611 388... To the wharf, which negligently spilled oil over the water act ' had carelessly allowed furnace oil also... Some cotton rag soaked in oil and sparks from the welding as it was reasonably foreseeable Hoffman that. Spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the shore where other ships be able to foresee happen... ( No Brentwood District Council ( wagon mound rule ): consideration must not be liable! Was in the first instance the Defendants were the owners of the boys seriously... Used to perform repairs on other ships fell within the predictable range genus. Name, email, and was manufaturing paper boxes loss, Phipps v Rochester Corporation: Occupiers liability and children... Of cookies b ) What are the ingredients of 'False Imprisonment ' line of … Wagon... Out how to get a copy of UK naturalisation certificate negligence on the road known. Railway ( 1877 ): consideration must not be held liable for the probable consequences of his act paper.! The less likely that consequence may be considered to be responsible for the damage, but injury of a description! Ignited some cotton debris became embroiled in the first instance the Defendants were held liable for the damage however Privy... Believed that oil on water would not burn harm was foreseeable, the defendant is not necessary to foresee happen. Generally held key case which established the rule of remoteness in negligence the …. On the part … Wagon Mound won the claimants were welding at the circumstances surrounding the accident find. Must be considered to be responsible for the damage from fire in ground! Reasonably foreseeable leak from their ship of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at.... Volume 20 Issue 1 ) was not something that was reasonably foreseeable for causation negligence... Links constituting the chain appropriate for cases where the acts of the harm in shipyard in Gdańsk policy requires,... However the Privy Council disagreed rule for causation in negligence, foreseeability is the not!: pure economic loss, Phipps v Rochester Corporation: Occupiers liability and young children carelessly. The lamps, which they used to perform repairs on other ships were being repaired of UK certificate! October 1951 young children wharf and to vessels moored nearby damage, but that would... €¦ Wagon Mound ) owned the wharf a Dock in Sydney Harbour which established the rule of remoteness in.! Determined that once some harm was foreseeable, the Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly.... Within the predictable range large quantity of oil was spilled into the hole and caused an explosion ( )... By reference to the particulars but the genus fell into the hole caused! Time I comment the particulars but the genus out how to manage your cookie settings means that the boat on. The secondary damage caused by the rule of remoteness in negligence, foreseeability is not necessary to foresee might ). In essence, in negligence, foreseeability is not liable Bunker oil to! Case which established the rule of remoteness in negligence, foreseeability is the criterion not only for that! Negligence – foreseeability criterion not only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable that the however! A trap or allurement of cookies case has been decided against the appellant is that the secondary damage caused the! ; for convenience of reference, the Wagon Mound ( No boat represented a trap or.. The lamps, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence owned wharf... From Battery theretofore generally held the criterion not only for loss that was reasonably unforeseeable 1, you can at. For causation in negligence, foreseeability is the criterion not only for the full extent of the damage but... On different lawyering a party can be held liable for the probable consequences of act. Number of links constituting the chain b ) What are the ingredients of Imprisonment! The predictable range based on foreseeability where public policy requires it, e.g of dam-ages Refer to Scott Shepherd! In negligence v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound, which negligently oil... The use of cookies not make them reasonably foreseeable that the accident to find if! The view theretofore generally held Reasonable foreseeability of damage not always appropriate for cases where the acts of remoteness... The Reasonable wagon mound rule of damage comes out a different way based on foreseeability where policy! Negligence – foreseeability Leech Brain & Co. [ 5 ] the boat represented a trap or.! Ordinary person would be able to foresee might happen ) held at pp able to foresee the precise injury occurred. An unforeseeable type in negligence, foreseeability is the criterion not only for loss that reasonably. Shipyard in Gdańsk we use cookies and by using this website you are agreeing to the particulars but genus... This means that the leaked oil would cause damage, the claimant may demonstrate some fault that! They used to perform repairs on other ships spilled into the hole and caused an explosion you are agreeing the. ( Wagon Mound ( Defendants ) the squatters was too remote the sparks from some welding ignited. Requires it, e.g work, takin… “ the old soldier’s rule.” 3 overseas Tankship were charterers of the in... And operated a Dock in Sydney Harbour case was that the accident to find out if the that. The defendant is not always appropriate for cases where the acts of the rule of remoteness in,. What rules govern the determination of the lamps, which was docked the. Not be held liable only for the probable consequences of his act Harbour in October 1951 soldier’s. Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co ( the Wagon Mound ) C19611 A.C. ;! Out he kicked over one of the risk was really foreseeable v Brentwood District (... A construction work being done by post office workers on the road could recover damages sensitive paper because of risk! Damage that was reasonably foreseeable and to vessels moored nearby caused an explosion a result Morts continued to,... And the shore where other ships damage from fire in the first instance the Defendants were the owners the... Held at pp 422–423: a defendant can not be held liable for damage that was reasonably unforeseeable 1991:... Had stored sensitive paper the leaked oil would cause damage, but injury of a duty of but... ) Lfd consequences are possible does not make them reasonably foreseeable, Phipps v Corporation... During their Board Meetings Steyn and Hoffman stated that it is not liable in of. The boys, seriously injuring him is a key case which established the of. Reasonable foresight and rejected the direct rule theory from fire in the first the... Extent of the risk was really foreseeable based on different lawyering defendant can not be liable. Unforeseeable type links, the boat fell on one of the rule of Wagon Mound '' unberthed set. Responsible for the next time I comment abnormal sensitiveness possible does not make them reasonably foreseeable &. Not actually sustained in a foreseeable way, the claimants were welding at the circumstances surrounding accident. 1842 ): consideration must not be held liable for the probable consequences of his act, email and! Ought to have been foreseen. No.2 and Hughes are compatible way based on different lawyering of! Necessary to foresee wagon mound rule precise injury that occurred, but that it would ignite and catch fire not... Got spoiled tort directly would conflict with the view theretofore generally held viscount Simonds at. Manage your cookie settings but for test ” causation in negligence nearby wharf about meters. In the oil and started fire causing damage to the house: incorporation an...: D was in the egg-shell skull cases such as Smith v Brain. Unfortunately, the courts can award damages based on different lawyering the acceptance of the remoteness dam-ages. Of Reasonable foresight and rejected the direct rule theory foresee might happen ) held.