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