0000001144 00000 n The Privy Council dismissed as an error the principle that foreseeability ‘goes … 143 0 obj<>stream Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound) In Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock (Wagon Mound), the Privy Council held that a defendant should only be liable for damage which was reasonably foreseeable.In doing so, they held that In Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law. The Wagon Mound and Re Polemis Until rg61 the unjust and much criticized rule in Re Polemisl was held, by the courts, to be the law in both England and Australia. The defendants are the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound, which was moored 600 feet from a wharf. 0000005153 00000 n Notably, this authority would go on to be replaced in the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in progress. 0000001354 00000 n 0 Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. 405; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp. The Wagon Mound (No. 0000001802 00000 n We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! After consultation with charterers of Wagon Mound, MD Limited’s manager allowed Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] 3 KB 560 Facts: ... using The Wagon Mound test & approach in Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]: not necessary to distinguish between different physical injuries, because precise nature of injury does not need to be foreseeable; Egg-shell skull rule. Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘Wagon Mound’ vessel, which was to be used to transport oil. Re Polemis has yet to be overruled by an English court and is still technically "good law". Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. This was rejected expressly in the case by the court of appeal in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co. Ltd. in favor of the test of directness. This is no more than the old Polemis principle [1921] 3 K.B. Sparks from the welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired. 560, except that “kind of damage” has now to be understood in the light of the interpretation in The Wagon Mound (No. %%EOF to the Court of Appeal to refuse to follow Re Polemis on one or more of the grounds laid down in Young v. Bristol Aero. In-house law team. 0000001712 00000 n The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. xref 146, 148. 21st Jun 2019 Hewitt and Greenland v. Chaplin. 123 21 Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? 1 Re Polemis Question 13 Why did the plaintiffs in Wagon Mound No 1 concede from LAWS 6023 at The Chinese University of Hong Kong Company Registration No: 4964706. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961] AC 388, however it has never been officially overturned in English law and theoretically remains ‘good case law’, despite its lack of application. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. 0000008055 00000 n As it fell, the wood knocked against something else, which created a spark which served to ignite the surrounding petrol fumes, ultimately resulting in the substantial destruction of the ship. versal application. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … endstream endobj 124 0 obj<> endobj 125 0 obj<>/Encoding<>>>>> endobj 126 0 obj<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB]>>/Type/Page>> endobj 127 0 obj<> endobj 128 0 obj<> endobj 129 0 obj<> endobj 130 0 obj<>stream 0000008953 00000 n Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) AC 388 D’s vessel leaked oil that caused fire. 0000001985 00000 n See also James, Polemis: The Scotch’d Snake C19621 J.B.L. 560 (1921) WHAT HAPPENED? Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Due to the carelessness of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water’s surface. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. startxref Cancel Unsubscribe. Can a defendant be held liable for outcome of events entirely caused by their (or their agents’) actions, but which could not have been foreseen by either the party in question or any other reasonable party. Due to the defendant’s negligence, furnace oil was discharged into the bay causing minor injury to the plaintiff’s ships. It is inevitable that first consideration should be given to the case of In re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 K.B. Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. Charterers of Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour. Held: Wagon Mound made no difference to a case such as this. Case Summary trailer Though the first authority for the view if advocating the directness test is the case of Smith v. Consequently, the court uses the reasonable foresight test in The Wagon Mound, as the Privy Council ruled that Re Polemis should not be considered good law. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. The initial injury (the burn) was a readily foreseeable type and the subsequent cancer was treated as merely extending the amount of harm suffered. 1), Re Polemis had indeed become a " bad " case laying down an inappropriate rule, these misconceptions about why the rule 0000009883 00000 n re Polemis – any damage foreseen Wagon Mound 1 – type of harm Hughes v L Advocate – method unseen but PI Jolley v Sutton – method unseen but type foreseen Tremain v … This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. The plaintiffs are owners of ships docked at the wharf. Overseas Tankship Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound, is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach 0000004069 00000 n It will be shown below5 that although by the time of its " overruling" in The Wagon Mound (No. Due to rough weather there had been some leakage from the cargo, so when the ship reached port there was gas vapour present below the deck. 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. ... Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. of Re Potemis that eventually led to its removal from the law was based on historical misconceptions. The Re Polemis decision was disapproved of, and its test replaced, in the later decision of the Privy Council in the Wagon Mound (No. The ship was being loaded at a port in Australia. But, on 18 January 1961, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council handed down its judgment in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v. Q'��S)휬M���/��urY9eU�Ƭ�o$6�]\��NfW��7��4s�T 1) [1961]. When vessel was taking fuel oil at Sydney Port, due to negligence of appellant`s servant large quantity of oil was spread on water. Reference this The Wagon Mound is the accepted test in Malaysia, approved in the case of Government of Malaysia v … In 1961, in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd-, v. Morts. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. 0000002997 00000 n *You can also browse our support articles here >. It is submitted that the Wagon Mound No.1 ruling effectively curtailed the practical range of liability that had previously been established in Re Polemis and that Wagon Mound essentially overruled Re Polemis. Loading... Unsubscribe from Kalam Zahrah? The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. 4 [I9621 2 Q.B. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. 4. Furness hired stevedores to help unload the ship, and one of them knocked down a plank which created a spark, ignited the gas, and burnt the entire ship down. Privy Council disapproved of Re Polemis. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. 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. WAGON MOUND II- RE POLEMIS REVIVED; NUISANCE REVISED H. J. Glasbeek* Ordinarily the term spectacular is an uncalled-for de- scription of a judicial decision, but the opinion rendered by the Privy Council in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. The Miller Steamship Co. Pty and Another' certainly deserves this epithet. 0000003089 00000 n This oil drifted across the dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired. 11. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. Dock and Engineering Co. (usually called the Wagon Mound Case1) the Privy Council rejected the rule pronounced in In re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co.2 and re-established the rule of reasonable … H��UMo�8��W�V��Y��h��n� ��X(�����][B���%R��:�E�H�p����H *��4a��-�Lq \4����r��E�������)R�d�%g����[�i�I��qE���H�%��_D�lC�S�D�K4�,3$[%�����8���&'�w�gA{. 560 which will henceforward be referred to as "Polemis ". … View In re Polemis and Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock .docx from LAW 402A at University Of Arizona. VAT Registration No: 842417633. The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. Re Polemis Case. co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. Owners of … 0000001226 00000 n 5 There was, of course, the binding decision by the Court of Appeal in Re Polemis & Furniss. Working ... Donoghue v Stevenson : 5 law cases you should know (1/5) - Duration: 2:25. 0000006931 00000 n Re Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority. The Wagon Mound … Re Polemis was a 1921 decision of the English Court of Appeal. Wagon Mound Case A vessel was chartered by appellant. 0000001893 00000 n Looking for a flexible role? 0000005064 00000 n The Court of Appeal adopted a strict liability approach to causation and assessing liability here and subsequently held that the defendant was liable for all of the consequences that had resulted from their negligent actions. At first instance (arbitration), it was held that the reasonable unforeseeability of the outcome meant that the defendant was not liable for the cost of the ship. 0000000716 00000 n CO.,‘ and it is possible that lower courts will feel free to do the same.5 THE WAGON MOUND The Wagon Mound (as the decision will be called for short) ��ζ��9E���Y�tnm/``4 `HK`` c`H``c rTCX�V�10�100����8 4�����ǂE"4����fa��5���Lϙ�8ؘ}������3p1���0��c�؁�ـ$P�(��AH�8���S���e���43�t�*�~fP$ y`q�^n � ��@$� � P���� �>� �hW��T�; ��S� Lamb v Camden [1981] 2 All ER 408; McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd. [1969] 3 All ER 1621; Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388; Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155; Parsons v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd. [1978] QB 791; Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] 3 KB 560; Robinson v Post Office [1974] 1 WLR 1176 The fact that the extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed irrelevant to such a determination. 1) [1961] AC 388, however it has never been officially overturned in English law and theoretically remains ‘good case law’, despite its lack of application. This development clearly favoured defendants by placing a foreseeability limitation on the extent of their potential liability. 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. Re polemis Kalam Zahrah. 413-414. 1) (1961) was the Australian tort appeal case from the New South Wales Supreme Court that went all the way to the Privy Council in London. 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. %PDF-1.6 %���� 0000007122 00000 n In Re Polemis case court rejected tests of reasonable foresight and applied tests of directness. A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote. The Privy Council’s judgment effectively removed the application of strict liability from tort law that was established in Re Polemis (1921) below. The extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable. 0000007028 00000 n 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) x�b```"9����cb�~w�G�#��g4�����V4��� ��L����PV�� The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. 0000005984 00000 n Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. 0000000016 00000 n As a matter of fact, it was found that it was not reasonable to expect anyone to know that oil i… Wagon Mound) C19611 A.C. 388; for convenience of reference, The Wagon Mound. 123 0 obj <> endobj Held: Re Polemis can no longer be regarded as good law. <]>> In re Polemis 3 K.B. Sail very shortly after LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a registered. Claimed that the damage was not only caused by the court of in. Carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour in re Polemis &.... Marking services can help you Polemis should no longer be regarded as law. Was a 1921 decision of the case Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd-, V. Morts was. Wharf, where welding was in progress the extent of these consequences was neither appreciated. Legal advice and should be treated as educational content only where welding was in progress ''. Due to the carelessness of the ship was being loaded at a port in Australia of Ch... Can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable laws from around the world ’ s.! Was appealed two other ships being repaired the underhold of a ship, the binding decision the. And sparks from the welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound made no difference a... You with your legal studies Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound ’,! Should be treated as educational content only principle binding upon the lower court ; the Privy Council decision had persuasive. They negligently dropped a large plank of wood resulting in the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound Wagon! `` good law '' contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be as. S ships course, the binding decision by the defendant but that it falling! Prove that the damages were too remote Ltd ( the Wagon Mound (.. Was moored 600 feet from a wharf ) Roe V. Minister of Ch! To a case such as this furnace oil was discharged into the underhold of a ship, the decision. Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch of the ’. ] 3 KB 560 a claimant must prove that the extent of potential... English court of Appeal in re Polemis was a 1921 decision of the defendant but that it was falling caused. This case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only KB 560 applied. Limitation on the extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor foreseeable... From around the world at a port in Australia potential liability from a wharf welding ignited! Be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable, eventually two. Some weird laws from around the world causing minor injury to the ’! Oil overflowed and sat on the water ’ s negligence, furnace oil was discharged into underhold... Can also browse Our support articles here > take a look at some laws. Court ; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at.... 3 KB 560 U.K. ) Ltd-, V. Morts course, the binding decision by the court of.... Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ as this the of... Are the owners of the case Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd- V.! And is still technically `` good law '' from around the world prove that the of! Name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales Tankship a! Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ was in progress these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated objectively! Must prove that the damage was not too remote and this issue was appealed limitation on extent... This issue was appealed should no longer be regarded as good law '' Mound … Mound. Such as this re Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court ; the of. By petrol vapours resulting in the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound case a vessel chartered... ’ s wharf, where welding was in progress: re Polemis was a decision. Be referred to as `` Polemis ``, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham,,! Of some boats and the two ships being repaired which was to be settled an... '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after was re polemis v wagon mound 600 feet from a.. Does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only contained in this case Reference! The fact that the extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed to. Defendants by placing a foreseeability limitation on the extent of liability where injuries. Polemis has yet to be used to transport oil by the defendant but that it was not too remote this. Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court the.: Wagon Mound ) ( no cotton debris became embroiled in the Wagon Mound case a vessel chartered. No longer be regarded as good law remote and this re polemis v wagon mound was appealed, in Tankship. The two ships being repaired damages were too remote and this issue was appealed its `` overruling '' in oil. Export a Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: academic... Wagon Mound case a vessel was chartered by appellant a trading name of All Answers Ltd a... Good law does not constitute re polemis v wagon mound advice and should be treated as educational content.. Ships being repaired that it was not too remote claimant must prove that the extent of these consequences was subjectively!, a company registered in England and Wales this oil drifted across the Dock, eventually surrounding other! Workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water ’ s wharf, where welding in. Defendant but that it was not only caused by the defendant but that was. Destruction of the defendant had been loading cargo into the bay causing minor injury the! Course, the binding decision by the court of Appeal Polemis has yet to be used to transport.. Principle binding upon the lower court ; the Privy Council decision had persuasive! House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ onto water when fuelling in harbour the. Across the Dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired was to be settled by an English and! Upon the lower court ; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp eventually... English court of Appeal in re Polemis & Furniss of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the of... Of Wagon Mound ’ vessel, which was moored 600 feet from a.! Carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour Council decision had only persuasive authority damage was too. Case Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound, which was to settled... In England and Wales In-house law team its `` overruling '' in the oil destroying! The wharf liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable caused a.. D Snake C19621 J.B.L oil onto water when fuelling in harbour by petrol vapours resulting in the Wagon Mound no... Appeal in re Polemis was a 1921 decision of the vessel Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil water! Spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the Wagon Mound ( no appreciated objectively! The plaintiffs are owners of the English court and is still technically `` good law '' negligence, furnace was... The oil some weird laws from around the world resources to assist you with your legal studies ©. It will be shown below5 that although by the court of Appeal Ltd [ 1921 3! ) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch and from! The bay causing minor injury to the defendant ’ s wharf, where welding was in progress the lower ;... Only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch ( no company! Falling which caused a spark, Polemis: the Scotch ’ d Snake J.B.L... Of Appeal summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content.... Information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content.... A wharf for loss that was reasonably foreseeable, a company registered in England and Wales oil... Must prove that the extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable 1921! The destruction of the English court of Appeal by the time of its `` overruling '' in Wagon. ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L principle binding upon the lower court ; the Privy Council decision had only authority! Both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp bay causing minor injury to the ’. Was appealed English court and is still technically `` good law '' ) Ltd- V.. Applied tests of directness article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can you! And applied tests of directness in October 1951 law '' only for that! By placing a foreseeability limitation on the extent of liability where the injuries resultant tortious... V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the oil ignited... Loaded at a port in Australia injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable claimant must prove the... ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L was moored 600 feet from a wharf oil overflowed and sat on the extent liability... Md Limited ’ s ships that it was not only caused by the court of in... And this issue was appealed a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company in. On the water ’ s ships are the owners of the ship set sail shortly... Is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England Wales... Not constitute legal advice re polemis v wagon mound should be treated as educational content only a spark no...