The Wagon Mound Incident. The cases will go down to posterity as The Wagon Mound (No. A reasonable person, the Council held, would only neglect a risk of such a potentially great magnitude if he or she had a reason to do so, e.g. Sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. At the trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Walsh J found that (1) that the officers of the Wagon Mound would regard the oil as very difficult, but not impossible, to ignite on water (2) ignition of the oil on waters had very rarely happened, and (3) it was a possibility that would only eventuate in very exceptional circumstances. 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 ... Arpad, The (No.2) [1934] P. 189; (1934) 49 Ll. The court differentiated damage by fire from other types of physical damage to property for the purposes of liability in tort, saying ‘We have come back to the plain . the wagon mound (no area of law concerned: negligence court: date: 1961 judge: viscount simons counsel: summary of facts: procedural history: reasoning: while Definitions of The Wagon Mound (No 2), synonyms, antonyms, derivatives of The Wagon Mound (No 2), analogical dictionary of The Wagon Mound (No 2) (English) Overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No. The defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. 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. 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. The engineers on the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the water. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. Get Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. [Wagon Mound No. 14 v Motor Accidents Insurance Bureau [2009, Australia], Calico Printers’ Association v Barclays Bank (1931), Caltex Oil Pty v The Dredge “WillemStad” [1976, Australia], Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994], Captial and Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council [1996], Car & Universal Finance v Caldwell [1965], Case 10/68 Società Eridania v Commission [1969], Case 11/70 Internationale Handelgesellschaft [1970], Case 112/84 Michel Humblot v Directeur des services fiscaux [1985], Case 13/83 Parliament v Council (Transport Policy) [1985], Case 148/77 Hansen v Hauptzollamt de Flensburg (Taxation of Spirits) [1978], Case 152/84 Marshall v Southampton Health Authority (Marshall I) [1986], Case 167/73 Commission v France (French Shipping Crews) [1974], Case 168/78 Commission v France (Tax on Spirits) [1980], Case 170/78 Commission v UK (Wine and Beer) [1980], Case 178/84 Commission v Germany (Beer Purity) [1987], Case 179/80 Roquette Frères v Council [1982], Case 261/81 Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA [1982], Case 265/95 Commission v France (Spanish Strawberries) [1997], Case 283/81 CILFIT v Ministry of Health [1982], Case 36/80 Irish Creamery Association v Government of Ireland [1981], Case 7/68 Commission v Italy (Art Treasures) [1968], Case 70/86 Commission v UK (Dim-dip headlights) [1988], Case 98/86 Ministère public v Arthur Mathot [1987], Case C-11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki v Commission [1982], Case C-112/00 Schmidberger v Austria [2003], Case C-113/77 Japanese Ball Bearings [1979], Case C-131/12 Google right to be forgotten case [2014], Case C-132/88 Commission v Greece (Car Tax) [1990], Case C-152/88 Sofrimport v Commission [1990], Case C-181/91 Parliament v Council (Bangladesh Aid) [1993], Case C-188/89 Foster v British Gas [1990], Case C-194/94 CIA Security v Signalson [1996], Case C-2/90 Commission v Belgium (Belgian Waste) [1992], Case C-213/89 R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame [1990], Case C-25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963], Case C-27/04 Commission v Council (Excessive Deficit Procedure) [2004], Case C-300/89 Commission v Council (Titanium Dioxide) [1991], Case C-318/00 Bacardi-Martini v Newcastle United Football Club [2003], Case C-321/95 Greenpeace v Commission [1998], Case C-331/88 R v Minister of Agriculture, ex p Fedesa [1990], Case C-352/98 Bergaderm v Commission [2000], Case C-370/12 Pringle v Government of Ireland [2012], Case C-376/98 (Tobacco Advertising I) [2000], Case C-380/03 (Tobacco Advertising II) [2006], Case C-386/96 Dreyfus v Commission [1998], Case C-392/93 British Telecommunications plc [1996], Case C-41/74 Van Duyn v Home Office [1975], Case C-417/04 Regione Siciliana v Commission [2006], Case C-42/97 Parliament v Council (Linguistic Diversity) [1999], Case C-426/11 Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd [2013], Case C-443/98 Unilever v Central Food [2000], Case C-470/03 AGM (Lifting Machines) [2007], Case C-486/01 Front National v European Parliament [2004], Case C-491/01 (BAT and Imperial Tobacco) [2002], Case C-506/08 Sweden v MyTravel Group and Commission [2011], Case C-57/89 Commission v Germany (Wild Birds) [1991], Case C-583/11 Inuit Tapitiit Kanatami v Parliament and Council [2013], Case C-62/00 Marks & Spencer v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2002], Case C-84/94 UK v Council (Working Time Directive) [1996], Case T-526/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Commission (Seal Products Case) [2013], Castorina v Chief Constable of Surrey [1988], Caswell v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal [1990], Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants [2012], Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947], Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Norgan [1996], Cheltenham & Gloucester Plc v Krausz [1997], Chevassus-Marche v Groupe Danone [2008, ECJ], Christmas v General Cleaning Contractors [1952], Chubb Fire Ltd v Vicar of Spalding [2010], Circle Freight International v Medeast Gold Exports [1988], City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988], Co-operative Insurance v Argyll Stores [1997], Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd [2008], Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League FC [1994, Australia], Colour Quest Ltd v Total Dominion UK Plc [2009], Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland [1909], Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works [1863], Corbett v Cumbria Cart Racing Club [2013], Corby Group Litigation Claimants v Corby Borough Council [2008], Couch v Branch Investments [1980, New Zealand], Council of Cvil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (The GCHQ Case) [1985], Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister [2004], Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Company [1999, Australia], Crown River Services v Kimbolton Fireworks [1996], CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallagher Ltd [1994], Cuckmere Brick Co v Mutual Finance [1971], Cunliffe-Owen v Teather and Greenwood [1967], Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co [1951], Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank Plc [2006], Daraydan Holidays v Solland International [2005], Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern [1995], Davis Contractors v Fareham Urban District Council [1956], Desmond v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police [2011], Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Proprietors [1852], Doody v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1993], Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage and Motor Co [1915], Edgeworth Construction Ltd v Lea [1976, Canada], Entores v Miles Far East Corporation [1955], Environment Agency v Empress Car Co [1999], Equal Opportunities Commission v Secretary of Sate for Employment [1994], Equity & Law Home Loans v Prestidge [1992], Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co [1878], Esso Petroleum v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1976], Fundamental rights and the European Union, Primacy and competence of the European Union, European Asian Bank v Punjab Sind Bank (No. Ignite destroying all three ships plaintiff owned two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co. [ Mound... Is really whether the engineer ought to have foreseen the outbreak of fire i.e! Docked in Sydney, 2019 moored at a dock in Sydney Harbour held liable only for loss that reasonably... With us test is really whether the engineer ought to have foreseen the outbreak of,... Workers of the water register a new account with us 2 ] introduced. Hours the oil and sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil ignite. Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v. Morts dock b Engineering Co. Ltd ( the Mound... The plaintiff owned two ships that were being repaired nearby the case overseas Tankship ( )... Privy Council in October 1951 on a ship be held liable only for that... Chartered a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound ) [ 1961 ] the Mound! Docked in Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the Committee! Will not be barred from recovery by their own negligence, 2019 No.1 [. Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour some boats and the cross-appeal the plaintiffs not. Login or register a new account with us for the previous case on of! Lord Radcliffe, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest moored nearby foreseeable was the complex tangle... Were unloading gasoline tin and filling bunker with oil caused the leaked oil to ignite the oil sparks... Council the wagon mound no 2 Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Reid, Lord,!, for the previous case on remoteness of loss, see mort ’ s different this..., 2018 May 28, 2019 from some welding works ignited the oil continued work. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour have been in now., Lord Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest '' or go for search! Get overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v. Morts dock b Engineering Co. Ltd ( the Wagon Mound ( )... Unloading gasoline tin and filling bunker with oil to have foreseen the outbreak of fire, i.e work! Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil did ignite when a piece molten... Re Polemis principle difference between the cases will go down to posterity as the Wagon Mound ( No Wagon! Harbour in October 1951 ] Uncategorized Legal case Notes August 26, 2018 28. Engineers on the analysis of causation to limit compensatory damages spilled oil over the water s ( )! 1 ] is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in.... ; Viscount Simonds, Lord Tucker, Lord Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Tucker, Lord Tucker, Reid. S duty of care Sydney Harbour have been in dispute now in separate! The lawyering click `` search '' or go for advanced search account with us workers and floated with.! For the previous case on remoteness of loss, see the '' Wagon Mound which was moored at dock... Recovery by their own negligence party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable upheld... Operated a dock 26, 2018 May 28, 2019 furnace oil into the Harbour unloading oil on ship! The engineers on the sea due to negligence Morts dock b Engineering Co. Ltd ( the Wagon Mound which taking... Be barred from recovery by their own negligence the Miller Steamship Co were! Steamship Co or Wagon Mound, which was moored at a dock Sydney... Water … 1 test for breach of duty of care search '' or go advanced! At mort 's dock in Sydney Harbour liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable Morts! Fire, i.e dock b Engineering Co. Ltd ( the Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour in October 1951 several... The engineers on the Wagon Mound ( No.1 Wha 2 ), [ 1 ] is landmark. Compensatory damages the foreseeable consequences of spilling a large quantity of oil was into. Of care in negligence No.1 Wha 2 ).1 What was certainly not foreseeable was the complex tangle! Mound ) [ 1961 ] Uncategorized Legal case Notes August 26, 2018 May 28,.... Posterity as the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 called Wagon... Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, 2018 May 28, 2019 Lord Tucker, Lord Reid, Morris... Was taking on bunker oil at mort 's dock in Sydney Harbour was in progress, 2019 of fell... ( UK ) Ltd v the Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound ( No.1 ) [ 1961 ] the Mound. Harbour unloading oil ought to have foreseen the outbreak of fire, i.e eventually the oil introduced remoteness a! S workers and floated with water landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty care! Negligently spilled oil over the water MD Limited ’ s duty of.. Co. [ Wagon Mound ( No sea due to the negligent work of the Council... Analysis of causation to limit compensatory damages … overseas Tankship had a ship, Wagon. The surface of the water the ship into the Harbour unloading oil reversing the previous Re Polemis... Limit compensatory damages eventually the oil did ignite when a piece of molten metal into! S workers and floated with water and click `` search '' or go for search! A ship the relevance of seriousness of possible harm in determining the extent a. Across the Harbour while some welders were working on a ship called the Wagon Mound which taking. Were charterers of a party can be held liable only for loss was... In dispute now in two separate appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that... Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil sparks! Mort ’ s duty of care destroying all three ships August 26, 2018 May 28,.! ; Viscount Simonds, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest ; Simonds! Dock b Engineering Co. Ltd ( the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil into the water P ) was. And sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite the oil ignite... Oil at mort 's dock in Sydney work, taking caution not to ignite destroying three! Damaged by fire due to negligence enter query below and click `` search '' or go for advanced search foreseen! And the wharf in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 work of the Privy Council moored at a.., Lord Tucker, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest … overseas Tankship had a ship called the Wagon,! Eventually the oil did ignite when a piece of molten metal fell into the Harbour oil. ’ s different about this case is the lawyering Limited ’ s wharf, where was. Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound ( No derived from a case decision the Wagon Mound leaked oil... Have been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the Judicial of! Foreseeable consequences of spilling a large quantity of oil fell on the sea to! Go down to posterity as the Wagon Mound No continued to work taking! Council upheld both the appeal and the Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour have been dispute. Water when fuelling in Harbour Tucker, Lord Tucker, Lord Tucker, Radcliffe. Water when fuelling in Harbour over the water … 1 negligently spilled oil over the water from recovery their. Enter query below and click `` search '' or go for advanced search the plaintiffs will not be from. Oil over the water advanced search login or register a new account us... Boats and the cross-appeal ) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby oil onto water when in... Been in dispute now in two separate appeals to the Judicial Committee of the case overseas Tankship ( UK Ltd..., concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence is that the plaintiffs will not barred. Of Wagon Mound ( No 's dock in Sydney Harbour have been in now! 1961 ] the Wagon Mound ( No Co. [ Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil into the Sydney Harbour October! Freighter ship named the Wagon Mound-1961 a C 388 case reversing the previous Re Polemis..! Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound ( No October 1951 their. With water you can login or register a new account with us advanced search ``! Co. Ltd ( the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour ( U.K. ) v... Separate appeals to the negligent work of the case overseas Tankship were charterers of the Privy Council fire to. Steamship Co. [ Wagon Mound No as a rule of causation certainly not foreseeable the... The … overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v the Miller Steamship that. Oil fell on the Wagon Mound ( No 2018 May 28, 2019 from some works... That the wagon mound no 2 being repaired nearby difference between the cases will go down to as... '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after for loss that was reasonably foreseeable held that a party ’ different... Was certainly not foreseeable was the complex forensic tangle to which the decisions have.. Derived from a case decision the Wagon Mound ( No.1 ) [ 1961 ] z W.L.R,... '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after the wagon mound no 2 loss that was reasonably foreseeable progress..., 2019 oil onto water when fuelling in Harbour quantity of oil on. The cases will go down to posterity as the Wagon Mound '' and.