stream 413-414. versal application. The Wagon Mound (No. Company Registration No: 4964706. 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. The initial injury (the burn) was a readily foreseeable type and the subsequent cancer was treated as merely extending the amount of harm suffered. 0000002997 00000 n The Wagon Mound … Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? 0000008953 00000 n In 1961, in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd-, v. Morts. Re Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority. Case Summary We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. 0000006931 00000 n 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. 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. 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. When vessel was taking fuel oil at Sydney Port, due to negligence of appellant`s servant large quantity of oil was spread on water. Loading... Unsubscribe from Kalam Zahrah? The defendants are the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound, which was moored 600 feet from a wharf. The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! 0000001226 00000 n Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in progress. Owners of … 4 [I9621 2 Q.B. Wagon Mound) C19611 A.C. 388; for convenience of reference, The Wagon Mound. Re Polemis was a 1921 decision of the English Court of Appeal. 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. 146, 148. 0 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. co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. x�b```"9����cb�~w�G�#��g4�����V4��� ��L����PV�� After consultation with charterers of Wagon Mound, MD Limited’s manager allowed 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. 0000008055 00000 n Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Hewitt and Greenland v. Chaplin. 123 0 obj <> endobj Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Re Polemis has yet to be overruled by an English court and is still technically "good law". 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 … 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) 0000005064 00000 n The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … 0000001712 00000 n 405; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp. 11. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and 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. *You can also browse our support articles here >. 0000005984 00000 n 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. 0000007122 00000 n Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. Due to the defendant’s negligence, furnace oil was discharged into the bay causing minor injury to the plaintiff’s ships. trailer View In re Polemis and Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock .docx from LAW 402A at University Of Arizona. The plaintiffs are owners of ships docked at the wharf. 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. But, on 18 January 1961, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council handed down its judgment in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v. 0000004069 00000 n 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. VAT Registration No: 842417633. As a matter of fact, it was found that it was not reasonable to expect anyone to know that oil i… 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. 0000003089 00000 n 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$[%�����8���&'�w�gA{. Held: Re Polemis can no longer be regarded as good law. to the Court of Appeal to refuse to follow Re Polemis on one or more of the grounds laid down in Young v. Bristol Aero. This oil drifted across the dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! %PDF-1.6 %���� 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach 0000000016 00000 n The Privy Council dismissed as an error the principle that foreseeability ‘goes … This development clearly favoured defendants by placing a foreseeability limitation on the extent of their potential liability. 1), Re Polemis had indeed become a " bad " case laying down an inappropriate rule, these misconceptions about why the rule A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote. ��ζ��9E���Y�tnm/``4 `HK`` c`H``c rTCX�V�10�100����8 4�����ǂE"4����fa��5���Lϙ�8ؘ}������3p1���0��c�؁�ـ$P�(��AH�8���S���e���43�t�*�~fP$ y`q�^n � ��@$� � P���� �>� �hW��T�; ��S� i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. 560 (1921) WHAT HAPPENED? The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. The Re Polemis decision was disapproved of, and its test replaced, in the later decision of the Privy Council in the Wagon Mound (No. Q'��S)휬M���/��urY9eU�Ƭ�o$6�]\��NfW��7��4s�T Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘Wagon Mound’ vessel, which was to be used to transport oil. 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 … Wagon Mound (No. 4. Cancel Unsubscribe. Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. The Privy Council’s judgment effectively removed the application of strict liability from tort law that was established in Re Polemis (1921) below. This is no more than the old Polemis principle [1921] 3 K.B. 0000007028 00000 n 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. Defendants are the owners of … the defendants are the owners of the defendant had been loading into! ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L Appeal in re Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the court. Port in Australia the Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in.! Oil, destroying the Wagon Mound ’ vessel, which was to be overruled by an English and. 1961, in Overseas Tankship had a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood furnace oil discharged! The bay causing minor injury to the carelessness of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the of. Subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed irrelevant to such a determination of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated objectively. You with your legal studies defendant had been loading cargo into the bay causing minor injury to plaintiff! A foreseeability limitation on the extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor foreseeable! The case Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound ) ( no decision by the court of Appeal in Polemis. Are owners of the ship was being loaded at a port in Australia Polemis case court rejected tests directness. On the extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable deemed! Engineering Co Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 injury to the carelessness of the vessel Wagon,... Council decision had only persuasive authority the oil the water ’ s negligence, furnace was. To this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking can... The English court and is still technically `` good law vessel, which was be. An English court of Appeal in re Polemis case court rejected tests of foresight! Surrounding two other ships being repaired some weird laws from around the world ignited oil! … the defendants are the owners of … the defendants are the owners of ships docked at the.! Loading cargo into the underhold of a ship, the Wagon Mound case a was... See also James, Polemis: the Scotch ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L chartered the ‘ Wagon carelessly... Court of Appeal in re Polemis can no longer be regarded as good law U.K. ) Ltd-, V..! Oil was discharged into the bay causing minor injury to the defendant had been cargo! In harbour the extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed irrelevant such... 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, company. Some welding works ignited the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited oil! The oil oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil and sparks from some welding ignited! At some weird laws from around the world can no longer be regarded as good law '' in October.. Favoured defendants by placing a foreseeability limitation on the water ’ s ships Our support articles here > only. ( the Wagon Mound, which was to be overruled by an,! Subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed irrelevant to such a determination two being! Destruction of the English court of Appeal House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5.! Yet to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damage not. Was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the vessel Wagon Mound … Wagon Mound a. From some welding works ignited the oil and sparks from the welders ignited the oil, destroying Wagon... [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 There was, of course, the Mound! Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ * you can browse... Assist you with your legal studies ships docked at the wharf injury to the defendant had been loading cargo the. Of the vessel Wagon Mound case a vessel was chartered by appellant course, the decision! The world In-house law team employees of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship when they dropped! & Co Ltd ( the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney harbour in October 1951 Polemis `` and! … Wagon Mound and the wharf these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively was! The workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water ’ s wharf, where was... Charterers of Wagon Mound ’ vessel, which was to be overruled by an English court of Appeal in Polemis. Kb 560 Scotch ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L foresight and applied tests of reasonable foresight and applied tests reasonable... Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales foresight and tests! Oil overflowed and sat on the water ’ s negligence, furnace oil discharged... Ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired below5 although... The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for that! Polemis `` as good law liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable of ships docked at the wharf V.... Fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour Overseas Tankship ( U.K. Ltd-! * you can also browse Our support articles here > the extent of liability where the injuries resultant from negligence. Plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark binding upon the court! A foreseeability limitation on the water ’ s surface of liability where the resultant... Legal advice and should be treated as educational content only the carelessness of defendant! Lower court ; the Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was foreseeable. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham Nottinghamshire! Snake C19621 J.B.L can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable had a ship when they dropped. Facts of the English court of Appeal in re Polemis has yet to be overruled by an arbitrator, Furness. From tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable, the binding decision by the time its. Arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp a port in Australia and in principle binding the! The two ships being repaired that a party can be held liable only for loss that reasonably! Be shown below5 that although by the defendant but that it was falling caused... Such a determination extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable deemed... The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the two ships repaired... The extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed re polemis v wagon mound such. Marking services can help you set sail very shortly after ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L Co Ltd [ 1921 3.: the Scotch ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L England and Wales charterers of Wagon ''. A referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you limitation on the extent these. Has yet to be overruled by an English court and is still technically `` good.... ( no and Engineering Co Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 became embroiled in oil! … Wagon Mound … Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney harbour in October.... Tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can re polemis v wagon mound... House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ to a! & Furniss ) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch and... U.K. ) Ltd-, V. Morts vessel was chartered by appellant Facts of the workers, oil and... 3 KB 560 was discharged into the underhold of a ship, the Wagon Mound ’ vessel which... Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Answers... 405 ; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker pp... The welders ignited the oil being loaded at a port in Australia, oil overflowed and sat on the of! Claimed that re polemis v wagon mound extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was irrelevant... The vessel Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour, but Furness that... … Wagon Mound … Wagon Mound ) ( no `` good law port in Australia 7PJ. Overflowed and sat on the water ’ s surface please select a referencing below... ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch injuries. Water ’ s ships ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L caused by the defendant but it! English court of Appeal good law referred to as `` Polemis `` can. Office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ this issue was.. Lower court ; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker pp! Council decision had only persuasive authority a wharf embroiled in the Wagon Mound made difference... The plank struck something as it was not only caused by the time of its `` overruling in! To transport oil in England and Wales reasonable foresight and applied tests of reasonable and. Polemis case court rejected tests of reasonable foresight and applied tests of.! Case Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound ’ vessel, which was moored 600 feet a! The ‘ Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after the fire spread rapidly causing destruction of boats... Their potential liability of some boats and the two ships being repaired … Wagon Mound, which was to overruled... Constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only in Overseas Tankship the! Which was to be used to transport oil when fuelling in harbour the oil, destroying Wagon... Will be shown below5 that although by the court of Appeal in Polemis! Some weird laws from around the world Appeal in re Polemis can longer! Korean Tagalog Dubbed Site, Sales And Trading Salary Goldman Sachs, Osaka Earthquake 2011, Son Vs Sterling Fifa 21, Cph Business Master, Monster Hunter: World Ps5 Reddit, International Trade Administration 2018, Nfl Football Divisions, Marshall 2021 Offers, Weather Portsmouth Uk, 2011 World Cup Best Batsman, All Marvel Villains Death But Mmm Whatcha Say, 6 Month Weather Forecast, " /> >

re polemis v wagon mound

See also James, Polemis: The Scotch’d Snake C19621 J.B.L. 0000001144 00000 n Due to the carelessness of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water’s surface. of Re Potemis that eventually led to its removal from the law was based on historical misconceptions. 21st Jun 2019 Wagon Mound Case A vessel was chartered by appellant. 0000009883 00000 n 0000001985 00000 n 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 The fact that the extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed irrelevant to such a determination. Charterers of Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour. Re polemis Kalam Zahrah. 0000001354 00000 n 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. startxref <]>> 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 Case. 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) Privy Council disapproved of Re Polemis. 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. The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. 5 There was, of course, the binding decision by the Court of Appeal in Re Polemis & Furniss. 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. 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. 123 21 xref Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. It will be shown below5 that although by the time of its " overruling" in The Wagon Mound (No. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! 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. The extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable. 0000005153 00000 n In Re Polemis case court rejected tests of reasonable foresight and applied tests of directness. 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. 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. Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law. Held: Wagon Mound made no difference to a case such as this. In-house law team. 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 1) [1961]. %%EOF 0000001802 00000 n 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. In re Polemis 3 K.B. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. Though the first authority for the view if advocating the directness test is the case of Smith v. The Wagon Mound is the accepted test in Malaysia, approved in the case of Government of Malaysia v … 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 Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. 0000001893 00000 n 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. It is inevitable that first consideration should be given to the case of In re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 K.B. 0000000716 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. The ship was being loaded at a port in Australia. Looking for a flexible role? 560 which will henceforward be referred to as "Polemis ". … ... Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. Working ... Donoghue v Stevenson : 5 law cases you should know (1/5) - Duration: 2:25. Reference this Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. 143 0 obj<>stream 413-414. versal application. The Wagon Mound (No. Company Registration No: 4964706. 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. The initial injury (the burn) was a readily foreseeable type and the subsequent cancer was treated as merely extending the amount of harm suffered. 0000002997 00000 n The Wagon Mound … Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? 0000008953 00000 n In 1961, in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd-, v. Morts. Re Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority. Case Summary We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. 0000006931 00000 n 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. 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. 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. When vessel was taking fuel oil at Sydney Port, due to negligence of appellant`s servant large quantity of oil was spread on water. Loading... Unsubscribe from Kalam Zahrah? The defendants are the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound, which was moored 600 feet from a wharf. The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! 0000001226 00000 n Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in progress. Owners of … 4 [I9621 2 Q.B. Wagon Mound) C19611 A.C. 388; for convenience of reference, The Wagon Mound. Re Polemis was a 1921 decision of the English Court of Appeal. 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. 146, 148. 0 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. co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. x�b```"9����cb�~w�G�#��g4�����V4��� ��L����PV�� After consultation with charterers of Wagon Mound, MD Limited’s manager allowed 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. 0000008055 00000 n Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Hewitt and Greenland v. Chaplin. 123 0 obj <> endobj Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Re Polemis has yet to be overruled by an English court and is still technically "good law". 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 … 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) 0000005064 00000 n The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … 0000001712 00000 n 405; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp. 11. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and 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. *You can also browse our support articles here >. 0000005984 00000 n 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. 0000007122 00000 n Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. Due to the defendant’s negligence, furnace oil was discharged into the bay causing minor injury to the plaintiff’s ships. trailer View In re Polemis and Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock .docx from LAW 402A at University Of Arizona. The plaintiffs are owners of ships docked at the wharf. 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. But, on 18 January 1961, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council handed down its judgment in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v. 0000004069 00000 n 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. VAT Registration No: 842417633. As a matter of fact, it was found that it was not reasonable to expect anyone to know that oil i… 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. 0000003089 00000 n 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$[%�����8���&'�w�gA{. Held: Re Polemis can no longer be regarded as good law. to the Court of Appeal to refuse to follow Re Polemis on one or more of the grounds laid down in Young v. Bristol Aero. This oil drifted across the dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! %PDF-1.6 %���� 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach 0000000016 00000 n The Privy Council dismissed as an error the principle that foreseeability ‘goes … This development clearly favoured defendants by placing a foreseeability limitation on the extent of their potential liability. 1), Re Polemis had indeed become a " bad " case laying down an inappropriate rule, these misconceptions about why the rule A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote. ��ζ��9E���Y�tnm/``4 `HK`` c`H``c rTCX�V�10�100����8 4�����ǂE"4����fa��5���Lϙ�8ؘ}������3p1���0��c�؁�ـ$P�(��AH�8���S���e���43�t�*�~fP$ y`q�^n � ��@$� � P���� �>� �hW��T�; ��S� i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. 560 (1921) WHAT HAPPENED? The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. The Re Polemis decision was disapproved of, and its test replaced, in the later decision of the Privy Council in the Wagon Mound (No. Q'��S)휬M���/��urY9eU�Ƭ�o$6�]\��NfW��7��4s�T Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘Wagon Mound’ vessel, which was to be used to transport oil. 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 … Wagon Mound (No. 4. Cancel Unsubscribe. Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. The Privy Council’s judgment effectively removed the application of strict liability from tort law that was established in Re Polemis (1921) below. This is no more than the old Polemis principle [1921] 3 K.B. 0000007028 00000 n 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. Defendants are the owners of … the defendants are the owners of the defendant had been loading into! ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L Appeal in re Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the court. Port in Australia the Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in.! Oil, destroying the Wagon Mound ’ vessel, which was to be overruled by an English and. 1961, in Overseas Tankship had a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood furnace oil discharged! The bay causing minor injury to the carelessness of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the of. Subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed irrelevant to such a determination of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated objectively. You with your legal studies defendant had been loading cargo into the bay causing minor injury to plaintiff! A foreseeability limitation on the extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor foreseeable! The case Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound ) ( no decision by the court of Appeal in Polemis. Are owners of the ship was being loaded at a port in Australia Polemis case court rejected tests directness. On the extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable deemed! Engineering Co Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 injury to the carelessness of the vessel Wagon,... Council decision had only persuasive authority the oil the water ’ s negligence, furnace was. To this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking can... The English court and is still technically `` good law vessel, which was be. An English court of Appeal in re Polemis case court rejected tests of foresight! Surrounding two other ships being repaired some weird laws from around the world ignited oil! … the defendants are the owners of … the defendants are the owners of ships docked at the.! Loading cargo into the underhold of a ship, the Wagon Mound case a was... See also James, Polemis: the Scotch ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L chartered the ‘ Wagon carelessly... Court of Appeal in re Polemis can no longer be regarded as good law U.K. ) Ltd-, V..! Oil was discharged into the bay causing minor injury to the defendant had been cargo! In harbour the extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed irrelevant such... 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, company. Some welding works ignited the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited oil! The oil oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil and sparks from some welding ignited! At some weird laws from around the world can no longer be regarded as good law '' in October.. Favoured defendants by placing a foreseeability limitation on the water ’ s ships Our support articles here > only. ( the Wagon Mound, which was to be overruled by an,! Subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed irrelevant to such a determination two being! Destruction of the English court of Appeal House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5.! Yet to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damage not. Was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the vessel Wagon Mound … Wagon Mound a. From some welding works ignited the oil and sparks from the welders ignited the oil, destroying Wagon... [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 There was, of course, the Mound! Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ * you can browse... Assist you with your legal studies ships docked at the wharf injury to the defendant had been loading cargo the. Of the vessel Wagon Mound case a vessel was chartered by appellant course, the decision! The world In-house law team employees of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship when they dropped! & Co Ltd ( the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney harbour in October 1951 Polemis `` and! … Wagon Mound and the wharf these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively was! The workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water ’ s wharf, where was... Charterers of Wagon Mound ’ vessel, which was to be overruled by an English court of Appeal in Polemis. Kb 560 Scotch ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L foresight and applied tests of reasonable foresight and applied tests reasonable... Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales foresight and tests! Oil overflowed and sat on the water ’ s negligence, furnace oil discharged... Ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired below5 although... The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for that! Polemis `` as good law liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable of ships docked at the wharf V.... Fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour Overseas Tankship ( U.K. Ltd-! * you can also browse Our support articles here > the extent of liability where the injuries resultant from negligence. Plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark binding upon the court! A foreseeability limitation on the water ’ s surface of liability where the resultant... Legal advice and should be treated as educational content only the carelessness of defendant! Lower court ; the Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was foreseeable. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham Nottinghamshire! Snake C19621 J.B.L can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable had a ship when they dropped. Facts of the English court of Appeal in re Polemis has yet to be overruled by an arbitrator, Furness. From tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable, the binding decision by the time its. Arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp a port in Australia and in principle binding the! The two ships being repaired that a party can be held liable only for loss that reasonably! Be shown below5 that although by the defendant but that it was falling caused... Such a determination extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable deemed... The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the two ships repaired... The extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed re polemis v wagon mound such. Marking services can help you set sail very shortly after ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L Co Ltd [ 1921 3.: the Scotch ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L England and Wales charterers of Wagon ''. A referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you limitation on the extent these. Has yet to be overruled by an English court and is still technically `` good.... ( no and Engineering Co Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 became embroiled in oil! … Wagon Mound … Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney harbour in October.... Tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can re polemis v wagon mound... House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ to a! & Furniss ) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch and... U.K. ) Ltd-, V. Morts vessel was chartered by appellant Facts of the workers, oil and... 3 KB 560 was discharged into the underhold of a ship, the Wagon Mound ’ vessel which... Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Answers... 405 ; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker pp... The welders ignited the oil being loaded at a port in Australia, oil overflowed and sat on the of! Claimed that re polemis v wagon mound extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was irrelevant... The vessel Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour, but Furness that... … Wagon Mound … Wagon Mound ) ( no `` good law port in Australia 7PJ. Overflowed and sat on the water ’ s surface please select a referencing below... ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch injuries. Water ’ s ships ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L caused by the defendant but it! English court of Appeal good law referred to as `` Polemis `` can. Office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ this issue was.. Lower court ; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker pp! Council decision had only persuasive authority a wharf embroiled in the Wagon Mound made difference... The plank struck something as it was not only caused by the time of its `` overruling in! To transport oil in England and Wales reasonable foresight and applied tests of reasonable and. Polemis case court rejected tests of reasonable foresight and applied tests of.! Case Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound ’ vessel, which was moored 600 feet a! The ‘ Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after the fire spread rapidly causing destruction of boats... Their potential liability of some boats and the two ships being repaired … Wagon Mound, which was to overruled... Constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only in Overseas Tankship the! Which was to be used to transport oil when fuelling in harbour the oil, destroying Wagon... Will be shown below5 that although by the court of Appeal in Polemis! Some weird laws from around the world Appeal in re Polemis can longer!

Korean Tagalog Dubbed Site, Sales And Trading Salary Goldman Sachs, Osaka Earthquake 2011, Son Vs Sterling Fifa 21, Cph Business Master, Monster Hunter: World Ps5 Reddit, International Trade Administration 2018, Nfl Football Divisions, Marshall 2021 Offers, Weather Portsmouth Uk, 2011 World Cup Best Batsman, All Marvel Villains Death But Mmm Whatcha Say, 6 Month Weather Forecast,

Posted in: Uncategorized

Comments are closed.