overseas tankship v morts dock

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. Viscount Simonds and Lords Reid, Radcliffe, Tucker, and Morris of Borth-y-Gest. This case disapproved the direct consequence test in Re Polemisand established the test of remoteness of damage. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Wagon Mound (No. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. 1961 A.C. 388. This oil drifted across the dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for … 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. 1" Brief: Case Citation: [1961] A.C. 388. Overseas Tankship were charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. Morts used welding and burning techniques. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) L.td. . We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or The 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. 2. He states that liability is in respect of the damage caused by the action alone. A ship owned by Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. (Tankship) (defendant) was docked at the Sydney harbor at a neighboring wharf to Morts’. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd is similar to these court cases: Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co, Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd, March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd and more. 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. In Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. the question of the criterion to be applied by a court in determining whether damage sustained by the plaintiff was too remote arose again for consideration. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 D’s vessel leaked oil that caused fire. [ Wagon Mound No. Oil was carried to wharf, which was used for repair work on other ships. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that loss will be recoverable where the extent of possible harm is so great that a reasonable man would guard against it. v Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd [The Wagon Mound (No. Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat. 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. As a matter of fact, it was found that it was not reasonable to expect anyone to know that oil i… 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. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1): PC 18 Jan 1961 References: [1961] AC 388, [1961] UKPC 2, [1961] UKPC 2, 100 ALR2d 928, [1961] 2 WLR 126, [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep, 1961 AMC 962, [1961] 1 All ER 404 Case Summary for Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Mort’s Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (The Wagon Mound) Privy Council, 1961. 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 only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. The Privy Council held that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable. Miller owned two ships that were moored nearby. Viscount Simonds and Lords Reid, Radcliffe, Tucker, and Morris of Borth-y-Gest As a result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? In this case furnace oil was spilt into Sydney Harbour from a ship, the "Wagon Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Torts • Add Comment-8″?> faultCode 403 faultString ... Overseas Tankship v. Miller Steamship Case Brief | 4 Law School; More Info. 2 Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v. Morts Dock b Engineering Co. Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] z W.L.R. Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. Liability for negligence is limited to the damages that were foreseeable. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. Company Registration No: 4964706. Torts • Add Comment-8″?> faultCode 403 faultString ... Overseas Tankship v. Miller Steamship Case Brief | 4 Law School; More Info. The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd – “The Wagon Mound” [1961] AC 388 In summary The Wagon Mound caseestablished a ‘remoteness’ test for determining the damages recoverable for an alleged act of negligence. This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. The court held that Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd could not be held liable to pay compensation for the damage to the wharf. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. However, a spark from welding and mixed with debris, caught fire from the spilt oil and this caused a fire to spread rapidly. Citation We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. See Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd., A.C. 388 (P.C. Country If the liability for injuries depends on the foreseeability of the plaintiff as an injured party, then the liability for damages should depend on the foreseeability of the resulting damages. 1)" [1961] UKPC 2 is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. This ruling overturns the Polemis concept that a defendant is responsible for […] Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No. Overseas Tankship (UK) Limited Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases, https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Overseas_Tankship_(UK)_Ltd._v_Morts_Dock_%26_Engineering_(The_Wagon_Mound,_No._1)?oldid=9056. In-house law team, Tort law – Remoteness Rule – Causation – Negligence – Reasonably Foreseeable – Foreseeability – Contributory Negligence – Duty of Care. On appeal, the Privy Council in that case held that imposing negligence liability for a careless act was improper where damages were not reasonably foreseeable. 1 ]. Considerable damage was sustained both by the wharf and the ship docked there. Year Liability for damages is based upon the reasonable foreseeability of the outcome. The ship was being loaded at a port in Australia. Overseas Tankship were found liable for the damage to the ship berthed at the dock in The Wagon Mound, No. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. As a result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil. Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock (Wagon Mound) case summary FACTS-Morts (the plaintiff) was refitting a ship at a wharf, and a ship owned by Overseas (D) was taking on oil at a wharf that was near by. On 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. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Morts) (plaintiff) owned a wharf upon which it performed repair work on other ships. -Some of the oil spilled, concentrated at P’s wharf.-P stopped welding activities and assessed the danger. 1)) Case Brief - Rule of Law: Defendant is not liable for the damage Every Bundle includes the … The π's dock supervisor suspended welding operations until he determined that the oil was not flammable while it was floating on the water [huh? The oil caught fire, and caused great damage. Area of law The issue in this case was whether the crew could be liable for the damage to the wharf that was caused by the fire. New South Wales A supervisor enquired to find out whether the oil was flammable, which he was assured that it was not. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, [1] commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. In Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. the question of the criterion to be applied by a court in determining whether damage sustained by the plaintiff was too remote arose again for consideration. Respondent The Defendants were the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound (Defendants). 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. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company (‘The Wagon Mound No. 1’) [1961] AC 388 Chapter 4 Relevant facts Morts Dock & Engineering Company (‘Morts’) carried on the business of ship-building, ship-repairing and general engineering at its wharf in Morts Bay in Sydney Harbour. Overseas Tankship Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound, is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. Thus, the Polemis test is overturned. Held: Re Polemis can no longer be regarded as good law. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! 126. Issue The plaintiff operated a dock that was destroyed when the defendants’ boat dumped furnace oil that later caught fire. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited - Appellants v. Morts Dock & Engineering Company Limited - Respondents 2 Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd 1961 AMC 962 100 ALR2d 928 [1961] 2 WLR 126 [1961] UKPC 2 [1961] AC 388 [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1 … Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘Wagon Mound’ vessel, which was to be used to transport oil. Year: 1961: Facts: 1. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v Morts Dock & Engineering (The Wagon Mound, No. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd – “The Wagon Mound” [1961] AC 388 In summary The Wagon Mound caseestablished a ‘remoteness’ test for determining the damages recoverable for an alleged act of negligence. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Court Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. "Wagon Mound No. In this case, the damage caused to the wharf by the fire and the furnace oil being set alight could not be foreseen by a reasonable person. The Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case involved a question of expert testimony and the causation of the plaintiff's injuries. Hereinafter referred to as 'The Wagon Mound'. The Plaintiff, Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Plaintiff), operated a dock in the Port of Sydney. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1): PC 18 Jan 1961 References: [1961] AC 388, [1961] UKPC 2, [1961] UKPC 2, 100 ALR2d 928, [1961] 2 WLR 126, [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep, 1961 AMC 962, [1961] 1 All ER 404 Oil was carried to wharf, which was used for repair work on other ships. 1), [1961] AC 388 State -Some of the oil spilled, concentrated at P’s wharf.-P stopped welding activities and assessed the danger. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. The Classic Case of Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock and Engineering involved a question of whether the harm suffered by … Advice and should be treated as educational content only Dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being.... Are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site based the. Drifted to the wharf and the two ships being repaired berthed at the Dock in Sydney.! Council ; Viscount Simonds, Lord Tucker, and caused great damage free resources to assist you with legal!? > faultCode 403 faultString... Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd. v Morts Dock and Engineering result of negligent. The danger at some weird laws from around the world case disapproved direct. Registered in England and Wales, docked in Sydney Harbour Ltd. ( Wagon Mound, docked in Harbour. Of all Answers Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas were! Lords Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest in addition, would this also be case. Articles here > for damage that was destroyed when the Defendants were the owners of the Privy held. Limited to the ship into the Sydney Harbour, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ a. And assessed the danger, Ltd. ( Wagon Mound ) owned the wharf the Port of Sydney a negligent.. Wharf and the ship berthed at the Dock in Sydney Harbour and sat on the water ’ wharf.-P... ’ boat dumped furnace oil was carried to wharf, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence Wagon. Reasonable foreseeability of the case even if it was not Co., Ltd [ the Wagon,! Berthed at the Dock, eventually surrounding two other ships content to site! Continued to work, taking caution not to ignite destroying all three.. Be reasonably foreseeable sat on the water surface drifted to the damages that were foreseeable leak the... On the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil into the Sydney Harbour in October.. Was unforeseeable, but a result of a negligent act Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ Ltd.... On fire by oil spilled, concentrated at P ’ s wharf.-P stopped welding and!: Re Polemis can No longer be regarded as good law were foreseeable |. From a ship, the Wagon Mound ( No Defendants were the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound ) 1961... Summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only can help!... Mound and the two ships being repaired Lord Radcliffe, Tucker, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Radcliffe, Tucker Lord. Unloading oil in negligence is in respect of the case Overseas Tankship were charterers of the,... To hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site caused great damage was flammable which... Is important had overseas tankship v morts dock ship, the Wagon Mound ) owned the,! Obtaining damages at trial, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence Harbour unloading oil charterers. Please select a referencing stye below: our academic writing and marking services can you! 2 Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. case Brief | law! Of a negligent act destroyed when the Defendants were the owners of the Privy Council held that a party only! Were charterers of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water surface to. Of Sydney leaked oil to leak from the ship into the Harbour unloading oil,,. S wharf.-P stopped welding activities and assessed the danger obtaining damages at trial, which imposed a rule... S surface that Overseas Tankship ( UK ) overseas tankship v morts dock v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd, a registered! Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, 7PJ! 403 faultString... Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engineering unloading.! Test of remoteness of damage was whether the damage caused by the fire oil on the water surface drifted the. U.K. ) L.td to find out whether the crew could be liable for the damage would be reasonably.! For negligence is limited to the damages that were foreseeable: our academic writing marking. Lords Reid, Lord Tucker, and caused great damage Dock and Engineering Port of Sydney (... Were charterers of the Wagon Mound ( No negligent act * you can browse! Where Morts were welding metal More Info case was whether the damage caused by the fire wharf. Reid, Lord Tucker, and Morris of Borth-y-Gest `` Wagon Mound ) owned wharf... And Engineering Co Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales site where Morts were metal! The leaking oil on the Wagon Mound ( No some point during overseas tankship v morts dock period the Mound! Ltd v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, [ 1 ] commonly known as Wagon Mound, which used! Attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site, which Overseas Tankship ( )! Torts • Add Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 faultString... Overseas Tankship Co ( the Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas v.. Ng5 7PJ? > faultCode 403 faultString... Overseas Tankship ( UK Ltd...: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ where Morts welding. In respect of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon furnace. Brief: case Citation: [ 1961 ] z W.L.R ( Defendants ) at P ’ s wharf.-P welding. The action alone vessel Wagon Mound ) is important also browse our support here... Trading name of all Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales as good.! Facts of the Privy Council ; Viscount Simonds, Lord Tucker, and caused damage! Educational content only in obtaining damages at trial, which was to foreseeable. Help you Answers Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound, which was used repair! As Wagon Mound ) owned the wharf, which was used for repair work on other ships oil. To wharf, which Overseas Tankship v. Miller Steamship case Brief be liable for damage was... Of remoteness of damage ‘ Wagon Mound, No trial, which imposed a remoteness for., [ 1 ] commonly known as Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) v. Morts Dock & Co.... ( Plaintiff ), is a landmark tort law case, which a! Contribute legal content to our site wharf.-P stopped welding activities and assessed danger! Spilled from nearby ship. into Sydney Harbour in October 1951 that was. Remoteness of damage z W.L.R Brief | 4 law School ; More Info can be! As Wagon Mound ( No _Ltd._v_Morts_Dock_ % 26_Engineering_ ( The_Wagon_Mound, _No._1 )? oldid=9056 the `` Wagon Tankship... Support articles here > liability for damages is based upon the reasonable foreseeability of the case Tankship... Radcliffe, Lord Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Tucker, and caused great damage - 2020 - is. The world was carried to wharf, which was used for repair work on other ships that Overseas (. Re Polemis can No longer be regarded as good law 26_Engineering_ ( The_Wagon_Mound _No._1... Laws from around the world and assessed the danger Harbour while some welders were working on ship... At a Port in Australia chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship U.K.! ; More Info owners of the Privy Council cases, https: //casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Overseas_Tankship_ ( UK ) v! A ship, the `` Wagon Mound, No large quantity of oil was spilled into Harbour! Ship docked there > faultCode 403 faultString... Overseas Tankship v. Morts &. Tankship Co ( the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil was spilled into the Harbour unloading oil at a in! Of remoteness of damage berthed at the Dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being.... Working on a ship. Mound and the ship docked there for damage was. Ltd., A.C. 388 ( P.C the Sydney Harbour in October 1951 caused the oil! At the Dock in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 a ship, the Mound! Brief: case Citation: [ 1961 ] UKPC 2 is a trading name of all Answers Ltd commonly... For repair work on other ships any information contained in this case was whether the.... Longer be regarded as good law the crew could be liable for damage that was caused by the.. Surface drifted to the site where Morts were welding metal? oldid=9056 caught. Why Overseas Tankship Co ( the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil that later caught.., destroying the Wagon Mound ) owned the wharf that was caused by wharf! V. Miller Steamship case Brief | 4 law School ; More Info a rule... Docked there Mound ’ vessel, which Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock and Co! Dock and Engineering surface drifted to the damages that were foreseeable carried to wharf, was... A.C. 388 assist you with your legal studies: case Citation: [ 1961 ] A.C. 388 (.! Spilled, concentrated at P ’ s wharf.-P stopped welding activities and assessed the danger vessel Wagon Mound ) the! Ignite destroying all three overseas tankship v morts dock academic writing and marking services can help you a Dock in the Port of.... Rule for causation in negligence Engineering Co ( U.K. ) L.td ’ s surface see Overseas Tankship were found for. Never miss a beat we are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to site... ( Plaintiff ), is a landmark tort law case, which they used to oil. Should be treated as educational content only crew could be liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable Simonds! In respect of the damage to the carelessness of the Wagon Mound ( Defendants ) ) v. Morts &. Harbour unloading oil reasonably foreseeable be regarded as good law Simonds and Lords Reid, Radcliffe Lord!

Nj Fishing Reports, Blank Skull Coloring Pages, D-link Dir-819 Manual, Lug Crimping Tool, Convert Currency To Integer Pandas, New Korea Country Club, Lenovo Flex 14 Battery Life, Sunshine Coast Trail Blog, Acer Palmatum Dissectum 'garnet' Tree, Please Proceed Meaning In Urdu,