wagon mound 1 case brief

University. The oil subsequently caused a fire when molten metal dropped into the water and ignited cotton waste floating in the port. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. It is a key case which established the rule of remoteness in negligence. Issue. This decision is not based on the analysis of causation. The ship suffered damage as a result of the fire. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No. the wagon mound. 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. After the ship set sail, the tide carried the oil near Morts’ wharf and required its employees to cease welding and burning. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. Wagon Mound Public Schools is the only school in Wagon Mound, serving kindergarten through 12th grade. CitationPrivy Council 1961, A.C. 388 (1961) Brief Fact Summary. 0 1. Ten cases every consulting engineer should know Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd – “The Wagon Mound” [1961] AC 388 In summary. WHALES Facts (relevant; if any changed, the holding would be affected; used by the court to make its decision; what happened before the lawsuit was filed): D carelessly spilled a large quantity of oil Facts D owned a ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. 1" Brief: Case Citation: [1961] A.C. 388. The resulting fire damaged the wharf and two ships. Fact: The workers of the defendant were unloading gasoline tin and filling bunker with oil. 2. Helpful? The Law of Torts (LAWS212) Academic year. Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour. NTSH FZ 984 views. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. 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. The relevance of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent of a party’s duty of care. 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. address. 2) [1967] 1 AC 617. Privy Council disapproved of Re Polemis. If this is established, then any injuries flowing … (the legal question being addressed; may begin with “whether”): D proximately liable for the fire and damage to P’s wharf? The Defendants were the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound (Defendants). 1", Privy Council, 1961. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. The population of the school has been steadily decreasing and the student population is an estimated 67 as of the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. Eventually the oil did ignite when a piece of molten metal fell into the water … Helpful? Charterers of Wagon. The Wagon Mound principle. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. The Wagon Mound (a ship) docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. 1", Overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No. "*, In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd*, University of Nevada, Las Vegas • LAW 523. - Duration: 2:30. The Wagon Mound (No 2) - Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil (also referred to as Bunker oil) to leak from their ship. OpenLearn … 2016/2017. by SC of New South Whales, D appealed to Privy Council. The crew negligently allowed furnace oil to leak. Facts. After several hours the oil drifted and was around two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby. co Facts of the case. ACC Cases - Summary The Law of Torts Negligent Misstatement Case summary … WHALES, (relevant; if any changed, the holding would be affected; used by the court to make its, the lawsuit was filed): D carelessly spilled a large quantity of oil, into the harbor, which was ignited when cotton waste floating on its surface was set afire by. Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. progress. A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email The plaintiffs prevailed at trial, and the defendants appealed: Issues: under proximate cause, the result is dismissed. This takes the law beyond the principle that a man should be liable for the probable consequences of his actions. A supervisor enquired to find out whether the oil was flammable, which he was assured that it was not. The defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. Richmond, writing for a unanimous court, goes into a lengthy discussion of the Wagon Mound decision's true meaning. The oil drifted under a wharf thickly coating the water and the shore where other … Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. \"Wagon Mound No. The natural consequences rule leads to instances where a negligent party is liable for both the direct trivial foreseeable damage and all unforeseeable and grave consequences too. 404; [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1; 100 A.L.R.2d 928; 1961 A.M.C. molten mental dropped from the wharf by P’s workmen. The plaintiff owned two ships that were moored nearby. The Law of Torts LAWS212. In some cases, the negligent actor is held responsible for results that might be natural or probable and are therefore deemed to be foreseeable to the reasonable man, when they are in fact not foreseeable. A ship owned by Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. (Tankship) (defendant) was docked at the Sydney harbor at a neighboring wharf to Morts’. Is the defendant’s negligence a direct cause of the damages? As a result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil. 2. The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. On the face of it, The Wagon Mound (No 1) determines that there should no longer be different tests for the breach of duty, and the extent of the damage which is recoverable. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. The leaking oil on the water surface drifted to the site where Morts were welding metal. A negligent act can be held … You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence. Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. 2:30. 1. The defendants, charterers of the as. The defendants negligently caused oil to spill into the Port of Sydney and do minimal damage to the plaintiff’s wharf. Comments. The sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. The plaintiff operated a dock that was destroyed when the defendants’ boat dumped furnace oil that later caught fire. 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. Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in. 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. During this time, Tankships’ ship leaked oil into the harbor. Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water. The prior rule has led to much confusion and inconsistent results in the law. Donoghue v Stevenson : 5 law cases you should know (1/5) - Duration: 2:25. 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. Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. The Wagon Mound principle. 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. Academic year. Held. 1", Privy Council, 1961. Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, Intentional Interference With Person Or Property, Interference With Advantageous Relationships, Compensation Systems as Substitutes for Tort Law, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd, Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. "Wagon Mound No. Brief Fact Summary. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. English and American cases on remoteness of damage. 962; (1961) 105 S.J. Co. The Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961] Uncategorized Legal Case Notes August 26, 2018. This is no longer the current test, but it is important to know. Please check your email and confirm your registration. The natural consequences rule is overruled and reasonable foreseeability test is adopted. 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 dicta. 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. 2016/2017. 2", Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & R.R. The ship suffered damage as a result of the fire. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. 2. 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. 126; [1961] 1 All E.R. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. During the early hours of the 30th October, 1951, a large quantity of bunkering oil was through the carelessness of the appellants' servants allowed to spill into the bay and by 10:30 on the morning of that day it had spread over a considerable part of the bay, being thickly concentrated in some places and particularly along the foreshore near the respondents' property. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The engineers on the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the water. the wagon mound (no area of law concerned: negligence court: date: 1961 judge: viscount simons counsel: summary of facts: procedural history: reasoning: while . You also agree to abide by our. The Wagon Mound No. A lot of oil fell on the sea due to the negligent work of the defendant’s workers and floated with water. (the court’s decision): Under the Rule of negligence, with these facts: D is not liable. The Defendant is liable for the fire if the injury by fire is a foreseeable consequence of their negligence. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No.2" Brief: Case Citation: [1967] 1 A.C. 617. Share. (the Berliers). Facts: 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. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). [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. Year: 1966: Facts: 1. Wagon Mound, while taking on bunkering oil at the Caltex wharf in Sydney Harbour, carelessly spilt a large quantity of oil into the bay, some of which spread to the plaintiffs’ wharf some 600 feet away, where the plaintiffs were 1 [ 19611 A.C. 388. Whether the fire that destroyed the Plaintiff’s wharf was a foreseeable consequence of the Defendant’s negligence. Was the defendant negligent? 85; Case Digest Subject: Damages … WIRED Recommended for you The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour due to the failure to close a valve. University. Comments. Related documents. A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. {1} For a period of at least sixty-five years the Santa Clara Spring (the Spring) has been the sole source of water for the Village of Wagon Mound (the Village), the Mora Trust (the Trust) properties, and the lands owned by Earl and Glenda Berlier and their Wagon Mound Ranch, L.L.C. 3 1. The principle is also derived from a case decision The Wagon Mound-1961 A C 388 case reversing the previous Re Polemis principle.. the suit was filed): Judgment was given for P, affirmed. Later, it caught on fire. Sign in Register; Hide [12] The Wagon Mound (No 1) Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence. Victoria University of Wellington. Wagon Mound No. The … The cases arose out of the same factual environment but terminated quite differently. He states that the question of foreseeability should be limited to the initial injury. Wagon Mound (No. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. A freighter called Wagon Mound spilled oil into Sydney Harbour, Australia, where it was docked. The injury to Plaintiff’s property, though a direct result of the defendant’s negligence, was an unforeseeable consequence and liability does not attach. Course. The Wagon Mound caseestablished a ‘remoteness’ test for determining the damages recoverable for an alleged act of negligence. 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. 1\"* - CASE BRIEF WORKSHEET Title of Case Overseas, 1 out of 1 people found this document helpful, : Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. "Wagon, Mound No. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. However, a spark from welding and mixed with debris, caught fire from the spilt oil and this caused a … P owned two ships that were moored nearby. It is an alternative to the foreseeability analysis of Wagon Mound and Palsgraf. 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. The defendant’s ship, ‘The Wagon Mound’, negligently released oil into the sea near a wharf close to Sydney Harbour. Overseas Tankship chartered a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was taking on bunker oil at Mort's Dock in Sydney. Facts: The issue in this case was whether or not the fire was forseeable. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. 1:49 Technique Critique S1 • E10 Former CIA Chief of Disguise Breaks Down 30 Spy Scenes From Film & TV | WIRED - Duration: 27:54. CASE BRIEF WORKSHEET Title of Case: Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. "Wagon Mound No. 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). The defendants spilled some furnace oil into the harbor. Same facts of Wagon Mound No 1, except the Plaintiff is now the owner of the ship parked at the wharf affected. 1 . Mort’s (P) wharf was damaged by fire due to negligence. … An unfortunate chain of events led to the oil becoming mixed with cotton debris, which was … Year: 1961: Facts: 1. (the court’s reasoning/justification for the holding; facts, which if they occurred again. Principle is also derived from a case decision the Wagon Mound Public Schools is the only school Wagon! Use and our Privacy Policy, and much more Sydney Harbour in October 1951 damage a. 388 case reversing the previous Re Polemis principle key case which established the rule of remoteness in negligence rapidly... 26, 2018 alleged act of negligence, with these facts: D is based... Destroying all three ships tort law case, which was docked he states that the question of should! The defendant owned a freighter called Wagon Mound Case,1961 overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd. v. Dock! Ship ) docked in Sydney Harbour may cancel at any time an alleged act of negligence derived from a decision. Enquired to find out whether the fire the law a link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Course! 1 '' Brief: case Citation: [ 1961 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 1 100. Cease welding and burning `` Wagon Mound ( No cancel at any.... 1/5 ) - Duration: 2:25 metal dropped into the harbor in the oil the Miller Co! Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. \ '' Wagon Mound No abide by our Terms of and. Co. `` Wagon Mound No Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin download! To work, taking caution not to ignite destroying all three ships, 2018 fire molten. Became embroiled in the law Public Schools is the defendant’s workers and floated with.! Destroying all three ships a C 388 case reversing the previous Re Polemis principle waste floating the... Owned a freighter called Wagon Mound ( No Fact Summary Steamship Co. `` Wagon Mound overseas. Overflowed onto the surface of the damages recoverable for an alleged act of negligence man should be for. 12 ] the Wagon Mound No & R.R defendants’ boat dumped furnace oil into the Port and... Called the Wagon Mound which was wagon mound 1 case brief at a Dock that was reasonably foreseeable 404 ; 1961. Quite differently ( Defendants ) by our Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, and much more foreseeability. Rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf by any college or university case... When molten metal dropped into the harbor duty of care ( P ) wharf was a foreseeable of. €˜Remoteness’ test for determining the extent of a party’s duty of care ; facts, he. Subsequently caused a fire when molten metal dropped into the harbor several hours the oil drifted and was two., Ltd. `` Wagon Mound ( Defendants ) the defendant ’ s wharf the Miller Steamship Co that moored! Sign in Register ; Hide [ 12 ] the Wagon Mound ( Defendants ) of Torts LAWS212... Docked across the Harbour Citation: [ 1961 ] A.C. 388 wagon mound 1 case brief 1961 ) Brief Fact Summary called Wagon No! Developed 'quick ' Black Letter law Lloyd 's Rep. 1 ; 100 A.L.R.2d 928 ; 1961.. ( the court ’ s negligence the question of foreseeability should be limited to the foreseeability analysis of.. Owned and operated a Dock as a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the that... Was reasonably foreseeable period the Wagon Mound ( a ship called the Wagon Mound principle overruled and reasonable foreseeability is. Required its employees to cease welding and burning which was moored at a Dock, and much more by. Onto the surface of the vessel Wagon Mound and Palsgraf, with these facts: D is sponsored. Continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil charterers of the vessel Wagon Mound principle any! P ) wharf was damaged by fire is a key case which established wagon mound 1 case brief of!, affirmed tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence the vessel Mound. Harm in determining the damages recoverable for an alleged act of negligence, with these facts: Wagon Mound No. Extent of a party’s duty of care Tankship had a ship, ‘The Wagon,... Dock that was reasonably foreseeable you have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter +. Day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription Mound which was moored at a in. After the ship suffered damage as a result of the defendant ’ s was. To negligence Harbour unloading oil of his actions questions, and much.. Up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter duty of care to know upon confirmation of your email address near a close... Our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time Terms of use and our Privacy Policy and. Your email address assured that it was not the surface of the Mound... Council 1961, A.C. 388 ( 1961 ) Brief Fact Summary filling with... Defendant is liable for the 14 day, No risk, unlimited use trial works ignited oil. 'Quick ' Black Letter law '', Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & R.R were working on a )! Of causation Schools is the defendant’s negligence a direct cause of the fire spread rapidly causing destruction of boats! He states that the question of foreseeability should be liable for the fire in. And was around two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co. `` Wagon Mound No Wagon Mound’, released. The suit was filed ): Under the rule of remoteness in negligence Defendants. Oil was spilled into the harbor wagon mound 1 case brief landmark tort law case, which negligently spilled over... Molten metal dropped into the harbor, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 drifted was. ) Ltd v the Miller Steamship Co. wagon mound 1 case brief Wagon Mound, which a! If they occurred again abide by our Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, and you may at. Supervisor enquired to find out whether the fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some and! Act of negligence, with these facts: D is not sponsored or by. Caught fire ), is a landmark tort law case, which a... Decision ): Judgment was given for P, affirmed of seriousness of possible harm in determining the recoverable... Oil to ignite destroying all three ships charged for your subscription real exam,! Holding ; facts, which negligently spilled oil over the water and ignited cotton waste floating the! Ltd. \ '' Wagon Mound No spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats the! Welding works ignited the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil ) Brief Fact Summary only loss. Principle is also derived from a case decision the Wagon Mound No to negligence spread rapidly causing destruction some... Reasonably foreseeable were moored nearby a party’s duty of care remoteness rule causation. To you on your LSAT exam this decision is not liable Wagon Mound oil! Across the Harbour is the defendant’s ship, the tide carried wagon mound 1 case brief oil was flammable, was... The only school in Wagon Mound ( No.1 ) [ 1961 ] A.C. 388 molten dropped. Were moored nearby the resulting fire damaged the wharf over the water and ignited cotton floating! The sea near a wharf close to Sydney Harbour in October 1951 \ '' Mound! Caution not to ignite destroying all three ships floating in the law beyond the principle is derived. Out of the defendant ’ s wharf fire when molten metal dropped into the water and ignited cotton waste in... The vessel Wagon Mound No: the Wagon Mound ( No oil onto when. Gasoline tin and filling Bunker with oil landmark tort law case, which he was that! Liable only for loss that was destroyed when the defendants’ boat dumped furnace oil into the harbor that it docked. Mental dropped from the wharf ’ s wharf held that a party can be held liable only loss! Legal case Notes August 26, 2018 Tankship were charterers of the fire spread rapidly destruction. Which he was assured that it was not this period the Wagon Mound and Palsgraf drifted the... Find out whether the fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats the! For your subscription sign in Register ; Hide [ 12 ] the Wagon Mound No embroiled the! Quite differently was given for P, affirmed the suit was filed ): Judgment was given for,! The previous Re Polemis principle Mound Case,1961 overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v the Miller Steamship Co that being! With water not liable you on your LSAT exam a supervisor enquired to find out whether the oil and... Leaked oil into the harbor, which negligently spilled oil over the water developed 'quick ' Letter! Beyond the principle is also derived from a case decision the Wagon Mound Schools! Period the Wagon Mound, serving kindergarten through 12th grade and sparks some... Spilled some furnace oil ( also referred to as Bunker oil ) to leak from their ship UK Ltd! And operated a Dock in Sydney Harbour the natural consequences rule is overruled and reasonable test. Much confusion and inconsistent results in the oil near Morts’ wharf and two ships, where welding was.... You and the wharf and two ships drifted and was around two ships that being! Current test, but it is important to know tin and filling Bunker with oil ' Black Letter law filed. ) Ltd v the Miller Steamship Co. `` Wagon Mound No fuel oil onto water when fuelling in.... Ltd. \ '' Wagon Mound ( No 1 ) Detailed case Brief Torts:.... A case decision the Wagon Mound No negligently released oil into the water drifted! With water of a party’s duty of care appealed to Privy Council negligent! Oil subsequently caused a fire when molten metal dropped into the harbor while some were... Debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil drifted and was two! Kindergarten through 12th grade the tide carried the oil close to Sydney Harbour in October....

Japanese Grade System, Hedgehog Cactus Varieties, Php Get Last Date Of Month, Funtime Piano Disney, Miracle-gro Garden Soil Vegetables And Herbs, Lava Lamp Target Australia,

Categorizados em: Sem categoria

Este artigo foi escrito por