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

British International School Of Kuala Lumpur, Kmart Christmas Toys, Solar Radiation Measurement Ppt, Chester, Sc Full Zip Code, Metro Bus Driver Jobs, Varieties Of Religious Experience Amazon, Californication Solo Tab Pdf, Dispensary Mission Sf,