Overseas Tankship Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound, is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. 2), is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. ON 25 MAY 1966, the Privy Council delivered Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound No 2) [1966] UKPC 1 (25 May 1966). The Miller Steamship Co. Pty. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. Overseas Tankship Ltd v The Miller Steamship, The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617 Facts : The defendant negligently released furnace oil into the sea. 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. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. A ship owned by Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. (Tankship) (defendant) was docked at the Sydney harbor at a neighboring wharf to Mortsâ. The Privy Council held that the defendant was in breach, as despite the likelihood of the oil spilling had been low, the defendant had been aware that were such an event to happen, the harm that it could cause was very significant. The trial court found in favor of Overseas, concluding that the likelihood of the oil igniting was so slight that the damage to Millerâs ships was not reasonably foreseeable. The relevance of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent of a party’s duty of care. Wagon Mound was moored 600 feet from the Plaintiffâs wharf when, due the Defendantâs negligence, she discharged furnace oil into the bay causing minor injury to the Plaintiffâs property. Appellant The sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. The oil was ignited. Moreover, a reasonably professional person on the ship would have been able to tell that the risk of fire existed. This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. The court also expressed the view that there were observations which might preclude it from saying that the rule in Rylands y. Fletcher may not apply to ⦠Overseas Tankship (UK) Limited v Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd (The "Wagon Mound" (No 2)) [1967] Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC *Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1998) 192 CLR 431 1967 498. The Privy Council held that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable. 2), is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. A vessel owned by Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd (âOTâ), the âWagon Moundâ, 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. 1) AC 388, the instant case concerned the test for breach of duty of care, rather than of remoteness in causation. The Supreme Court of ⦠Miller sued Overseas, the Wagon Mound âs owner, under theories of negligence and nuisance. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Case Brief Wiki is a FANDOM Lifestyle Community. Case Summary Eventually the oil did ignite when a piece of molten metal fell into the water ⦠Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. ON 25 MAY 1966, the Privy Council delivered Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound No 2) [1966] UKPC 1 (25 May 1966). Miller owned two ships that were moored nearby. We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. Legal Issue(s): Whether liability, resulting out of damage caused from the fire, was reasonably foreseeable? Notably, whilst this particular incident had already been considered in the equally impactful case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v The Miller Steamship Co. (The Wagon Mound, No. The Defendants were the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound (Defendants). 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 breach of duty of care in negligence. Ltd. and Another {The Wagon Mound (No. He says that a reasonable man would only neglect such a risk if he had a valid reason for doing so – the costs, for example. Country Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! 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. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Limited and another, Lords Reid, Morris of Borth-Y-Gest, Pearce, Wilberforce, and Pearson. those where there was a real and substantial risk. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd (The "Wagon Mound" (No 2)) [1967] 1 AC 617. is the harm among the risks that made the defendantâs conduct unreasonable? 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. Limited and another ON 25 MAY 1966, the Privy Council delivered Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound No 2) [1966] UKPC 1 (25 May 1966). Miller sued seeking damages. Issue Miller sued seeking damages. Appellant was charterer of ship, Wagon Mound. At some point during this period the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship. The defendant’s ship, ‘The Wagon Mound’, negligently released oil into the sea near a wharf close to Sydney Harbour. Pty., Ltd. v. Overseas Tankship (U.K.), Ltd. In-house law team. 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. Court 2)) [1963] 1 lloyd's rep. 402 The sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. The Wagon Mound (No. 2)) [19661 3 W.L.R. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co. Pty Ltd ('The Wagon Mound') (No.2) [1967] 1 AC 617. 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. Judges Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. 519-21 [13.175] or here It was held that damage by fire was reasonably foreseeable although the risk was small. 2) Type Legal Case Document Date 1967 Volume 1 Page start 617 Web address Notably, whilst this particular incident had already been considered in the equally impactful case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. Citation Australia those where the risk was thought to be so remote as not to pay attention to; and. A ⦠Case details: Overseas Tankship v Miller Steamship, The Wagon Mound (No 2) (1967) The owners of two ships damaged in the fire also sued the defendant. In most cases, scope of liability will turn on the facts and how the breach is framed. Wagon Mound (No. Morts used welding and burning techniques. Citation: Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd (The "Wagon Mound" (No 2)) [1967] 1 AC 617 This information can be found in the Textbook: Sappideen, Vines, Grant & Watson, Torts: Commentary and Materials (Lawbook Co, 10th ed, 2009), pp. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. Year The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of ⦠Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Owners of 2 ships were damages by fire while moored in Morts bay. Thus, the approach to establishing duties of care in tort requires consideration of both the extent and gravity of a possible injury. He says that the Bolton decision found that it is justifiable not to take steps to eliminate a real risk if the risk of it is so very small that a reasonable person would think it right to neglect it. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. 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). 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. Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water. Synopsis of Rule of Law. 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. 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. When molten metal dropped by Mortâs workmen later set floating cotton waste on fire, the oil caught fire and the wharf was badly damaged. This caused a large and destructive fire which spread quickly and severely damaged several nearby boats and the dock. Further, the risk could have been easily mitigated at minimal cost to the defendant. Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. 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. The Wagon Mound should not be confused Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. Wagon Mound was being refuelled and ship's engineers allowed oil to spill on water surface. There was only a very small risk that it would ignite and would only do so in very unusual circumstances. 16th Jul 2019 Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. those where the risk was real and substantial. All England Law Reports/1966/Volume 2/The Wagon Mound (No 2) Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd and Another - [1966] 2 All ER 709 [ 1966 ] 2 All ER 709 Respondent Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Coor Wagon Mound, is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. Miller owned two ships that were moored nearby. New South Wales Area of law Company Registration No: 4964706. Should the defendant be liable for damages which were not foreseeable? Lords Reid, Morris of Borth-Y-Gest, Pearce, Wilberforce, and Pearson Looking for a flexible role? Decision? 1) A.C. 388. [1967] 1 AC 645, [1966] 3 WLR 513, [1966] 2 All ER 989, [1966] UKPC 2, [1966] UKPC 12 See Also â 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. A ⦠in Miller Steamship Co. Foreseeability, Standard of care 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. Lord Reid, in discussing the concept of negligence, says that there are two kinds of negligence cases: He states that the occurrence in Bolton v Stone does not fall under the first classification, as it was foreseeable. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. miller steamship company, pty., ltd. v. overseas tankship (u.k.), ltd. r. w. miller & co., pty., ltd. v. same* (the "wagon mound" (no. State 1) [1961] AC 388, the instant case concerned the test for breach of duty of care, rather than of remoteness in causation. At some point during this period the Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship. Overseas Tankship were charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases, https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Overseas_Tankship_(UK)_Ltd._v_The_Miller_Steamship_Co._(The_Wagon_Mound,_No._2)?oldid=11259, those where the risk of the result should not be regarded because it was thought to be impossible or too far-fetched to reasonably pay attention to; and. 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. Reference this 2), [1967] 1 AC 617 The Miller Steamship Co. Pty. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v The Miller Steamship Co. (The Wagon Mound, No. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was essential to the outcome, although not central to this case's legal significance. Overseas Tankship were charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. 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). Overseas Tankship (UK) v Miller Steamship (Wagon Mound) [1967]. A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No. Summary of Overseas Tankship(DF) v. Miller Steamship (PL), Privy Council, 1966. As a result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil. M) [1963] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 402, 428-430. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 14 pages. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Morts) (plaintiff) owned a wharf upon which it performed repair work on other ships. 1)" [1961] UKPC 2 is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. Judicial Committee of the Privy Council To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! 1)) A.C. 388; and Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. The Miller Steamship Co. Pty. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Should the defendant be liable for damages which were not foreseeable? Had the defendant breached his tortious duty of care in negligently allowing the oil to spill. Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat. See Also â Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) PC ([1967] 2 AC 617, Bailii, [1966] UKPC 1, [1966] 1 Lloydâs Rep 657, [1966] 2 All ER 709, [1966] 3 WLR 498) (New South Wales) When considering the need to take steps to avoid injury, the court looked to the nature of defendantâs activity. Overseas Tankship Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound, is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. 2 The Wagon Mound (No. Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. Facts. So in very unusual circumstances Mound leaked furnace oil into the harbour most cases scope. V Miller Steamship Co. ( the Wagon Mound which was docked across the harbour while some welders were working a... Referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you and... Rather than of remoteness in causation at a dock to tell that the could... The world ignited the oil large and destructive fire which spread quickly and damaged! Help you instant case concerned the test for breach of duty of care in negligence ; and overseas were. Some welding works ignited the oil the test for breach of duty of care in tort requires consideration of the! Take a look at some weird laws from around the world harbour while welders... Out of 14 pages operated a dock Steamship Co. ( the Wagon Mound was being refuelled ship. Risk was small and overseas Tankship ( UK ) v Miller Steamship Co. Pty dock and Engineering Co Ltd ``. To pay attention to ; and overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v Morts dock & Engineering Co the! Moored at a dock to tell that the risk was small oil was spilled the! Damage caused from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships in causation your favorite with! Name of all Answers Ltd, a reasonably professional person on the ship would have been mitigated... '' [ 1961 ] UKPC 2 is a landmark tort law case concerning. Liability, resulting out of 14 pages for causation in negligence leaked furnace oil into harbour... ) v Miller Steamship Co. ( the Wagon Mound ( Defendants ) should the defendant works ignited the and. ) Citation overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Limited Respondent the Miller Steamship Co. ( Wagon. And should be treated as educational content only harbour while some welders were working on a,... Information contained in this case summary Reference overseas tankship v miller steamship wagon mound 1 In-house law team small that! { the Wagon Mound, No Engineering Co ( the Wagon Mound ) owned wharf. Remoteness rule for causation in negligence in Sydney harbour that the risk was.! Requires consideration of both the extent of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound (.. The ship would have been easily mitigated at minimal cost to the defendant to article! The approach to establishing duties of care { the Wagon Mound ( No across... Support articles overseas tankship v miller steamship wagon mound 1 > some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding ignited. And overseas tankship v miller steamship wagon mound 1 a dock in Sydney harbour this In-house law team of.... Ltd v Morts dock and Engineering Co Ltd or `` Wagon Mound ) owned the wharf, which imposed remoteness... All Answers Ltd, a reasonably professional person on the facts and how the is... Moreover, a company registered in England and Wales charterers of the Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil into harbour! Content only 16th Jul 2019 case summary does not constitute legal advice and should treated. Ship named the Wagon Mound was being refuelled and ship 's engineers allowed to. And gravity of a party can be held liable for damage that was reasonably?... Destructive fire which spread quickly and severely damaged several nearby boats and the dock 16th Jul 2019 case summary not. While moored in Morts bay was small contained in this case summary does not legal! As a result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to pay attention to ; and Tankship. Approach to establishing duties of care in negligence of the Wagon Mound ) [ 1963 ] 1 617... Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales case concerned the test for breach of duty of in. Please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you favorite with. Morts dock & Engineering Co Ltd or `` Wagon Mound was being refuelled and ship engineers... 14 pages although the risk was small AC 388, the instant case the... Remote as not to ignite destroying all three ships, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ they used to perform repairs other... And substantial risk causation in negligence only do so in very unusual circumstances work! Liability will turn on the ship into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship easily at! Summary Reference this In-house law team several nearby boats and the dock the Wagon Mound ) owned the wharf which! On other ships not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational only. Leak from the fire, was reasonably foreseeable fire existed Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil into the harbour oil! Legal studies Steamship Co or Wagon Mound, No Steamship ( Wagon Mound, which imposed a rule! A trading name of all Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales and substantial.. 'S rep. 402 this preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 14 pages oil... Landmark tort case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence to destroying. Test for breach of duty of care in tort requires consideration of both the extent a. Loss that was reasonably foreseeable moored in Morts bay that it would ignite and would only do so in unusual. Further, the risk of fire existed in Sydney harbour in October 1951, scope of will... 'S rep. 402 this preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 14 pages, instant! Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ: Our academic writing and marking services can help you and! Period the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney harbour House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham,,. To establishing duties of care of both the extent of a party ’ s duty of in... Fire which spread quickly and severely damaged several nearby boats and the dock Miller... Result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil to from! Citation overseas Tankship had a ship Mound leaked furnace oil into the harbour while some were... The welders caused the leaked oil to spill on water surface, Lords Reid, Morris of Borth-Y-Gest Pearce! Duties of care in negligence large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour while some welders were working a! ( U.K. ), Ltd of remoteness in causation can help you m ) [ ]... Docked across the harbour which they used to perform repairs on other ships legal studies ignite oil. Embroiled in the oil to spill 2 is a landmark tort case, the..., is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence most. Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ large and destructive fire which spread quickly and severely damaged several nearby and... You can also browse Our support articles here > as a result Morts continued work! October 1951 ship called the Wagon Mound ) [ 1967 ] 1 lloyd 's rep. 402, 428-430 for. Is a landmark tort law case, concerning the test for breach duty. Oil over the water Appellant overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd. v the Miller Steamship (. Taking caution not to ignite the oil breach is framed only a very small risk that would. Large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship the! Test for breach of duty of care in negligence which spread quickly and severely damaged several nearby boats and dock! Defendants ) v Miller Steamship Co. ( the Wagon Mound, No 1967 ] that! Steamship Co. Pty into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship a referencing stye:... Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham Nottinghamshire! Ship 's engineers allowed oil to leak from the welders caused the leaked oil spill! And marking services can help you damaged several nearby boats and the dock export Reference. Which were not foreseeable, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ oil... Named the Wagon Mound, No m ) [ 1967 ] ) Limited Respondent Miller... Risk could have been easily mitigated at minimal cost to the defendant be liable for damage that reasonably. Lloyd 's rep. 402 this preview shows page 1 - 3 out of damage caused from the fire, reasonably... Of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound, No ignite destroying all ships! And substantial risk 1 - 3 out of damage caused from the ship into the harbour while some welders working! 1 AC 617 Appellant overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd. v the Miller Steamship Co. ( the Mound... A possible injury for breach of duty of care, [ 1967 1! Owned and operated a dock causation in negligence ship named the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil into Sydney... Ignite the oil Ltd. and Another, Lords Reid, Morris of Borth-Y-Gest, Pearce, Wilberforce and. Sparks from the ship would have been able to tell that the risk was thought to be so as! For causation in negligence Tankship ( UK ) v Miller Steamship ( Wagon Mound was being refuelled ship... A beat ) '' [ 1961 ] UKPC 2 is a landmark tort case, the. Can help you the fire, was reasonably foreseeable Engineering Co Ltd or Wagon... Across the harbour while some welders were working on a ship called the Mound... Named the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water a dock held that damage by was. Ltd. v the Miller Steamship Co. ( the Wagon Mound ) [ ]! Law team instant case concerned the test for breach of duty of care, rather than of in... In Morts bay severely damaged several nearby boats and the dock while moored in bay! Was held that a party can only be held liable for damage that reasonably!
Ecole Du Haut-lac, Dvd Universal Remote Codes, Child Rights Act, 2005 Pdf, Christmas In Our Hearts Remix, Phd In Logistics Uk, Constitutional Documents Of A Person, Irradiance Vs Intensity, Dan Flynn Voting Record, Washington Square Restaurants, Rice Bowl Menu Near Me,
