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

What Is The Stem Of A Tree Called, Bryan Slaton Campaign Contributions, Junk Bots Instructions, Moringa Powder Tea, Oregon Wood Wiki, Are Japanese Knives Worth It,