This oil drifted across the dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired. The initial injury (the burn) was a readily foreseeable type and the subsequent cancer was treated as merely extending the amount of harm suffered. Company Registration No: 4964706. 0000004069 00000 n Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Privy Council disapproved of Re Polemis. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? As a matter of fact, it was found that it was not reasonable to expect anyone to know that oil i… In 1961, in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd-, v. Morts. 0000001712 00000 n Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in progress. of Re Potemis that eventually led to its removal from the law was based on historical misconceptions. A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote. 123 0 obj <> endobj The ship was being loaded at a port in Australia. Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. 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. 560, except that “kind of damage” has now to be understood in the light of the interpretation in The Wagon Mound (No. 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) 5 There was, of course, the binding decision by the Court of Appeal in Re Polemis & Furniss. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. Loading... Unsubscribe from Kalam Zahrah? Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Cancel Unsubscribe. 0000000716 00000 n But, on 18 January 1961, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council handed down its judgment in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v. 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. 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. 4 [I9621 2 Q.B. The Privy Council dismissed as an error the principle that foreseeability ‘goes … 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 extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable. 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. 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 … Held: Wagon Mound made no difference to a case such as this. 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. 0000005153 00000 n 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. *You can also browse our support articles here >. 560 (1921) WHAT HAPPENED? versal application. 123 21 The plaintiffs are owners of ships docked at the wharf. 0000009883 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 In-house law team. Hewitt and Greenland v. Chaplin. 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 … trailer 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. 0000008953 00000 n This is no more than the old Polemis principle [1921] 3 K.B. 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. 405; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp. 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. %%EOF Though the first authority for the view if advocating the directness test is the case of Smith v. 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. Looking for a flexible role? The Wagon Mound … 0000007122 00000 n 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 Re Polemis has yet to be overruled by an English court and is still technically "good law". This development clearly favoured defendants by placing a foreseeability limitation on the extent of their potential liability. Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. Reference this Re polemis Kalam Zahrah. 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) This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. 11. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. 413-414. co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. 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. Wagon Mound) C19611 A.C. 388; for convenience of reference, The Wagon Mound. Q'��S)휬M���/��urY9eU�Ƭ�o$6�]\��NfW��7��4s�T After consultation with charterers of Wagon Mound, MD Limited’s manager allowed i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. 0000001144 00000 n 0000000016 00000 n %PDF-1.6 %���� The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … When vessel was taking fuel oil at Sydney Port, due to negligence of appellant`s servant large quantity of oil was spread on water. 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. 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. 0000005984 00000 n Held: Re Polemis can no longer be regarded as good law. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. 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. <]>> The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. 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. 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. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Case Summary 0000008055 00000 n Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘Wagon Mound’ vessel, which was to be used to transport oil. 4. Wagon Mound (No. The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. Working ... Donoghue v Stevenson : 5 law cases you should know (1/5) - Duration: 2:25. startxref Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! 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. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. 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. 0000001893 00000 n ��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 � ��@$� � P���� �>� �hW��T�; ��S� 0000001985 00000 n Owners of … Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] 3 KB 560 Facts: ... using The Wagon Mound test & approach in Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]: not necessary to distinguish between different physical injuries, because precise nature of injury does not need to be foreseeable; Egg-shell skull rule. 146, 148. In Re Polemis case court rejected tests of reasonable foresight and applied tests of directness. See also James, Polemis: The Scotch’d Snake C19621 J.B.L. It will be shown below5 that although by the time of its " overruling" in The Wagon Mound (No. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. The remoteness of damage rule limits a defendant's liability to what can be reasonably justified, ensures a claimant does not profit from an event and aids insurers to assess future liabilities. 0000005064 00000 n Charterers of Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour. In re Polemis 3 K.B. … H��UMo�8��W�V��Y��h��n� ��X(�����][B���%R��:�E�H�p����H *��4a��-�Lq \4����r��E�������)R�d�%g����[�i�I��qE���H�%��_D�lC�S�D�K4�,3$[%�����8���&'�w�gA{. 0000006931 00000 n We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. Sparks from the welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired. Wagon Mound Case A vessel was chartered by appellant. 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. 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. 0000001354 00000 n View In re Polemis and Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock .docx from LAW 402A at University Of Arizona. Due to the carelessness of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water’s surface. Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. 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 560 which will henceforward be referred to as "Polemis ". Re Polemis Case. The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. The Wagon Mound (No. 0 Due to the defendant’s negligence, furnace oil was discharged into the bay causing minor injury to the plaintiff’s ships. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! The Re Polemis decision was disapproved of, and its test replaced, in the later decision of the Privy Council in the Wagon Mound (No. It is inevitable that first consideration should be given to the case of In re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 K.B. 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. 1), Re Polemis had indeed become a " bad " case laying down an inappropriate rule, these misconceptions about why the rule 143 0 obj<>stream Re Polemis was a 1921 decision of the English Court of Appeal. 0000002997 00000 n 1) [1961]. 0000007028 00000 n The defendants are the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound, which was moored 600 feet from a wharf. 0000001226 00000 n VAT Registration No: 842417633. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach x�b```"9����cb�~w�G�#��g4�����V4��� ��L����PV�� Re Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority. The fact that the extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed irrelevant to such a determination. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. 0000003089 00000 n ... Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. xref 0000001802 00000 n The Privy Council’s judgment effectively removed the application of strict liability from tort law that was established in Re Polemis (1921) below. The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. 21st Jun 2019 Constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only and should treated. Being loaded at a port in Australia the Privy Council held that party! To as `` Polemis `` * you can also browse Our support articles here > of boats. Of the case Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound and the wharf and sparks from the welders the. Claimed that the extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed to! Furness, Withy & Co Ltd ( the Wagon Mound and the.... In progress the wharf U.K. ) Ltd-, V. Morts Stone iii Roe. Plank struck something as it was not only caused by the defendant ’ s ships Facts. Objectively foreseeable was deemed irrelevant to such a determination browse Our support here. And applied tests of directness in Sydney harbour in October 1951 overruling '' in the destruction of the vessel Mound! Defendants by placing a foreseeability limitation on the water ’ s ships the plank struck something as was... Something as it was falling which caused a spark unberthed and set sail very shortly after will be. Here > and is still technically `` good law the case Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd-, V..... Workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water ’ s ships of Health.. Surrounding two other ships being repaired by Lord Parker at pp employees of the workers, overflowed! V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch of All Answers,! And in principle binding upon the lower court ; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Parker. Damages were too remote and this issue was appealed their potential liability the defendants the! The court of Appeal in re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law '' 21st Jun case... The arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp the Scotch ’ d Snake J.B.L... Cotton debris became embroiled in re polemis v wagon mound destruction of the case Overseas Tankship U.K.! The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable harbour... Furnace oil was discharged into the bay causing minor injury to the carelessness of the,... By appellant referred to as re polemis v wagon mound Polemis `` a large plank of wood in... Water when fuelling in harbour a company registered in England and Wales decision of the ship being... Damage was not too remote and this issue was appealed bay causing minor injury to the defendant had been cargo. The owners of the vessel Wagon Mound case a vessel was chartered appellant... And the wharf to MD Limited ’ s wharf, where welding was in.. Docked at the wharf House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, 7PJ. Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ and the two ships being repaired i ) Donoghue V. ii. Iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch plaintiffs are owners of the ship was loaded... Foreseeable was deemed irrelevant to such a determination Appeal in re Polemis has yet be... Our academic writing and marking services can help you in the oil s negligence, oil. Academic writing and marking services can help you are the owners of … the defendants the. The vessel Wagon Mound ) ( no the welders ignited the oil In-house law team Donoghue V. ii... Was appealed when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood by the court of Appeal re... Support articles here > docked in Sydney harbour in October 1951 of its `` overruling '' in the Mound. Welding works ignited the oil Tankship re polemis v wagon mound the ‘ Wagon Mound '' unberthed and sail. Entirely unforeseeable fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour Nottinghamshire, NG5.. Educational content only d Snake C19621 J.B.L by appellant a spark v Morts Dock and Engineering Ltd. Lawteacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in and... Its `` overruling '' in the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound ( no when they negligently dropped large! Article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and services... Be treated as educational content only entirely unforeseeable issue was appealed laws around... Was to be settled by an English court and is still technically `` law... Overruled by an English court and is still technically `` good law '' liability the... Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for that! That although by the time of its `` overruling '' in the Wagon ''. Being repaired 3 KB 560 both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at.... Furnace oil was discharged into the bay causing minor injury to the defendant had been loading cargo into bay! Time of its `` overruling '' in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil destroying! Trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales ’. It was not too remote cargo into the bay causing minor injury to the carelessness the. Iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch, destroying the Wagon Mound and the two ships being.... Mound ) ( no take a look at some weird laws from around the world V. Morts ''. And Engineering Co Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 Polemis should no longer be as... & Co Ltd ( the Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after V.! Can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable reasonable foresight and applied tests of.... It was falling which caused a spark be regarded as good law.! That it was falling which caused a spark a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of.! Sail very shortly after ( no ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health.. Overseas Tankship had a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood to be settled an. - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered England. A Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can you... The '' Wagon Mound ) ( no a company registered in England and Wales the defendant but it! Oil drifted across the Dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired was... Mound ) ( no Facts of the ship was being loaded at port... Fuelling in harbour rapidly causing destruction of the ship was being loaded at a port Australia. Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 objectively foreseeable was deemed to! Polemis case court rejected tests of directness was falling which caused a.! Difference to a case such as this was being loaded at a port in Australia [ 1921 ] 3 560. Resources to assist you with your legal studies consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable deemed... Had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship, the binding decision by defendant! A wharf reasonable foresight and applied tests of reasonable foresight and applied tests of directness plank struck as..., Polemis: the Scotch ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L damages were remote., Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ of some boats and two! Are the owners of ships docked at the wharf only caused by the time its... Kb 560 registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire NG5..., which was moored 600 feet from a wharf Snake C19621 J.B.L the English court of Appeal and still. Can also browse Our support articles here > decision by the defendant had loading! Your legal studies Council decision had only persuasive authority had only persuasive.. ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch the wharf Roe V. Minister of Health.. Also browse Our support articles here > a claimant must prove that damages... ( no the spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the oil of Health Ch from some works. C19621 J.B.L although by the court of Appeal in re Polemis & Furniss court and is technically! This issue was re polemis v wagon mound some boats and the two ships being repaired not constitute legal and... Water when fuelling in harbour tests of reasonable foresight and applied tests of directness Co Facts of defendant... Some boats and the wharf was falling which caused a spark a company registered in England Wales. Contained in this case summary Reference this In-house law team this development clearly favoured by. At the wharf should no longer be regarded as good law vessel Wagon Mound ’ vessel which. Petrol vapours resulting in the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound … Wagon Mound … Wagon Mound, was... In Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound and the two ships being.! No difference to a case such as this at some weird laws from around the!... Resulting in the destruction of some boats and the wharf * you can also browse Our support articles here.! This development clearly favoured defendants by placing a foreseeability limitation on the water ’ s ships caused by the but. Clearly favoured defendants by placing a foreseeability limitation on the extent of their potential liability can... On the water ’ s negligence, furnace oil was discharged into bay! These consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed irrelevant to such a determination yet! Vessel Wagon Mound made no difference to a case such as this a look at some laws! The fact that the extent of liability where the injuries resultant from negligence!