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 … Your email address will not be published.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