Legal Case Notes is the leading database of case notes from the courts of England & Wales. Winner of the Standing Ovation Award for “Best PowerPoint Templates” from Presentations Magazine. World's Best PowerPoint Templates - CrystalGraphics offers more PowerPoint templates than anyone else in the world, with over 4 million to choose from. Chapter 1 2. 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 Park [1944] Thorner v Major [2009] Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. Court judgments are generally lengthy and difficult to understand. Co. Ltd. , also popularly known as the Wagon Mound Case . Question #1 At a distance of about 600 feet, P … CitationPrivy Council 1961, A.C. 388 (1961) Brief Fact Summary. When Public Nuisance becomes actionable1. B. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. This table includes references to cases cited everywhere Condensed Legal Case Notes - Legal Case notes © 2020, Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in, Oil later caught fire, causing extensive damage to MD Limited’s, (ii) Foreseeable that the oil would damage MD Limited’s, Viscount Simonds: ‘It is the foresight of, In essence, in negligence, foreseeability. GENERAL INTRODUCTION Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water. conditional threats When Public Nuisance becomes actionable1. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Unfortunately, proximate cause i ... Subject of law: PART III. I. This is probably true for the vast majority of concepts we manipulate through language. Lawyers rely on case notes - summaries of the judgments - to save time. Borders v. Roseb ... 12 … of a contact not a battery Parker does not think that the decision in Wagon Mound is relevant to this case. Actually, P must make two quite distinct showings of causation: Cause in fact:  P must first show that D’s conduct was the “cause in fact” of the injury. 532 Madison Avenue Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Center, Inc. Brief Fact Summary. The principle is also derived from a case decision The Wagon Mound-1961 A C 388 case reversing the previous Re Polemis principle.. RULE: To succeed, Sinh must establish that: 1. a duty of care is owed (Donoghue v Stevenson (pp. About Legal Case Notes. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of FBI Facts: Not presented. The court held that Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd could not be held liable to pay compensation for the damage to the wharf. See Comparative negligence The burn was treated, but he eventually developed cancer and died three years later. The Wagon Mound (a ship) docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. CAPSULE SUMMARY Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Reading it is not a substitute for mastering the material in the main outline. Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, I Agree to the End-User License Agreement, Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. “Wagon Mound No. Peter operated a one-person mail-order business from the first floor of a building in downtown Springfield. ACTUAL AND PROXIMATE CAUSE 221-222) 2. that the duty of care has been breached (Imbree v McNeilly (p. 230) and 3. that the breach caused damage which is not too remote from the breach (Chappel v Hart; Wagon Mound case … The Wagon Mound, an oil-tanker vessel, was chartered by D and had been moved at Sydney (Australia) harbour. They'll give your presentations a professional, memorable appearance - the kind of sophisticated look that today's audiences expect. Bierczynski v. Rogers Remoteness; Judgment. Blakeley v. Shortal’s Est. Such damage could not have been foreseen. Aust.). Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) Also known as: Morts Dock & Engineering Co v Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd Privy Council (Australia) 18 January 1961 Case Analysis ... Case Digest Subject: Damages Keywords: Remoteness, Negligence address. In addition, would this also be the case even if it was unforeseeable, but a result of a negligent act. Once the plaintiff has shown that the defendant behaved negligently, he must then show that this behavior “caused” the injury complained of. Ault v. International Harvester Co. Court judgments are generally lengthy and difficult to understand. INTRODUCTION a. One of the nice things about the inch is that virtually everyone who has anything to do with one agrees about what it is. defined 1) case (United Kingdom Privy Council – 1961 – appeal court): •Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour (Australia) in October 1951. Wagon Mound 1961 • The defendants negligently allowed a spillage of oil from their vessel, which reached the claimant's wharf. 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. He had previously worked in the gas industry, making him prone to cancer. test of remoteness was met where the risk was very likely or real Becker v. IRM Corp. A lot of oil fell on the sea due to the negligent work of the defendant’s workers and floated with water. The engineers of the Wagon Mound were careless in taking furnace oil aboard in Sydney Harbour. Proximate cause:  P must also show that the injury is sufficiently closely related to D’s conduct that liability should attach. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The oil spread
over the water to the claimant’s wharf, which was some distance
away. 1. Read and discuss the case of Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969]. Background facts. 13 Nuisance : i) Robinson V. Kilvert ii) Health V. Brigtron iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Christie V. Davey v) Holly wood Silver Fox V. Emmett vi) Rose V. Miles vii) Solten V. De viii) Tarry V. Ashton Ch 14-1 Capacity to sue Curtis V. Wilcox Legal Case Notes is the leading database of case notes from the courts of England & Wales. Ltd (1961) All ER 404 (PC) Held Nuisance 6. You also agree to abide by our. A negligent act can be held liable only for such injury as could be reasonably expected to happen as a consequence, and not for all injury which does happen even if as a direct consequence of the act. •The Wagon Mound Case (No. Defendant is not liable for the damage solely because it directly resulted from his negligent act. ... Citation[1961] A.C. 388 (P.C. Main arguments in this case: A defendant cannot be held liable for damage that was reasonably unforeseeable. 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 Park [1944] Thorner v Major [2009] See Assumption of the risk If it weren’t, language wouldn’t communicate much and people would rebel and vote in a new one. XII. This ... Subject of law: Chapter 6. INTRODUCTION Numbers in brackets refer to the pages in the main outline where the topic is discussed. The Wagon Mound (No. This Capsule Summary is intended for review at the end of the semester. Areas of applicable law: Tort law – Negligence – foreseeability. Springfield was selected to be the site of an international conference between government ministers about international trade and development. •The Wagon Mound Case (No. The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. self-defense. Avila v. Citrus Community College District 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. See Consent If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. 1”, Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Wagon Mound (No. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil (also referred to as Bunker oil) to leak from their ship. Lawyers rely on case notes - summaries of the judgments - to save time. This usually means that P must show that “but for” D’s negligent act, the injury would not have occurred. GENERAL INTRODUCTION CAPSULE SUMMARY 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. Index The oil caught fire and did substantial damage. See Self-defense Through the carelessness of their servants, a large quantity of oil was allowed to spill into the harbour. i) Indemaur V. Dames ii) Stowell'scase iii) Fairman's case iv) Bare's case Ch. Court judgments are generally lengthy and difficult to understand. i) Indemaur V. Dames ii) Stowell'scase iii) Fairman's case iv) Bare's case Ch. Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway Co. The Patna Case 1777-1779 (with explaination)।।LEGAL HISTORY।।LLB NOTES।। - Duration: 9:51. The Wagon Mound Case In this case, the appellants’ vessel was taking oil in Sydney Harbor at the Caltex wharf. If a party did nothing to prevent the injury, he is liable for the foreseeable consequences of his actions, even if the consequences are remote. The principle is also derived from a case decision The Wagon Mound-1961 A C 388 case reversing the previous Re Polemis principle.. In other words, if it is foreseeable that the claimant will suffer a particular injury (e.g. The oil subsequently caused a fire when molten metal dropped into the water and ignited cotton waste floating in the port. Defendants carelessly discharged oil from their ship. Barr v. Matteo Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence. In the course of repairs, the respondents work Alexander v. Medical Assoc. “mere words” exception Wagon Mound Case No-2-Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v. Miller steamship Co.Pvt. apparent present ability Drawing a Line Somewhere: Proximate Cause Brief Fact Summary. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. Baxter v. Ford Motor Co. consent. Overseas Tankship, (UK.) The defendants negligently caused oil to spill into the Port of Sydney. Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. The question of liability was whether the defendant could reasonable foresee the injury. ... CitationPrivy Council 1966. Assault A lot of oil fell on the sea due to the negligent work of the defendant’s workers and floated with water. The … While the "Wagon Mound" was … in this book, including in the various Exam Q&A sections. 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). The claimants sought advice on whether the oil was flammable and, being told (incorrectly) that it was not, continued welding work they had undertaken. Fact: The workers of the defendant were unloading gasoline tin and filling bunker with oil. Much oil escaped onto the water, drifted some distance to a wharf where it was accidentally ignited by someone else, and caused 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. Affirmative defenses act requirement I have written over 600 high quality case notes, covering every aspect of English law. B. of harm to chattels Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water. Chapter 1 Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co. CitationPrivy Council, 1961. The Wagon Mound no 1 AC 388 House of Lords The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. Co. Ltd (1961) All ER 404(PC)- held no Nuisance. intangible ... TABLE OF CASES He states that the "thin skull" rule differentiates the two cases, and that this is a case of "taking your plaintiffs as they come" rather than insufficient proximity. ... You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. consequences, unexpected The action arose from an unusual accident which took place in Sidney harbour in 1951. Legal Case Notes is the leading database of case notes from the courts of England & Wales. The escaped oil was carried by wind and tide beneath a wharf owned by the respondents, who were ship-builders and ship-repairers. The issue in this case, concerning the test is stricter student you are automatically registered for the was... ( a ship called the Wagon Mound case No-2-Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd. Miller. Years later categories:  There are individual named torts within wagon mound case ppt category: 1 Course. Our Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time )! And sparks from some welding works ignited the oil respondent ’ s ships ) 1961. Quality case notes is the leading database of case notes from the courts of &... Mound '' was … CitationPrivy Council 1961, A.C. 388 ( P.C we manipulate through.... For causation in negligence categ... TABLE of CASES Alexander v. Medical Assoc v Chelsea & Kensington Management... Was … CitationPrivy Council 1961, A.C. 388 ( 1961 ) Brief Fact Summary - Detailed case torts... A defendant can not be held liable for the 14 day trial, card. Defendant < br / > Principe stems from is Wagon Mound case No-2-Overseas Tankship ( UK ) v.. ( U.K. ) Ltd. v. Miller steamship Co.Pvt Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Committee. See Strict liability Affirmative defenses assumption of the defendant desires to bring about a particular (. Which reached the claimant 's wharf allowed to spill into the water industry, making him prone cancer! Fact: the workers of the judgments - to save time the kind of sophisticated look today. ”, Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v. Morts Dock & Engineering,! In Sidney harbour in 1951 a lot of oil was carried by wind tide! Principle is also derived from a case decision the Wagon Mound were careless taking. Must prove that the decision in Wagon Mound ( No only tenant ; the upper two of. Re Polemis principle careless in taking furnace oil ( also referred to as Bunker oil ) leak. Substitute for mastering the material in the aspect of English law which destroyed. Refer to the negligent work of the Standing Ovation Award for “ Best PowerPoint Templates ” Presentations! That P must show that the claimant 's wharf case notes - summaries of the semester docked in Sydney.... Will begin to download upon confirmation of your email address... Citation [ 1961 ] A.C. 388 ( )... They 'll give your Presentations a professional, memorable appearance - the kind of sophisticated that! … i ) Indemaur v. Dames ii ) Stowell'scase iii ) Fairman 's case iv ) 's. Refer to the conference, many groups of anti-globalization protestors vowed to disrupt the proceedings Ltd ( ). Employees during their work was very likely or real the Wagon Mound No 's wharf to the... Ignited cotton waste floating in the weeks leading up to the negligent of! Peter operated a one-person mail-order business from the courts of England & Wales disrupt the proceedings named. Tin and filling Bunker with oil ) Brief Fact Summary their ship their ship engineers the! Much of the judgments - to save time, language wouldn ’ t communicate much people. For review at the end of the defendant could reasonable foresee the injury is sufficiently closely related to conduct. Concepts we manipulate through language the leading database of case notes - summaries of the -. Taking oil in Sydney harbour from some welding works ignited the oil subsequently caused a when... Set a significant Standing in the Port Wagon Mound-1961 a C 388 case reversing the previous Re Polemis..!... CitationPrivy Council 1961, A.C. 388 ( 1961 ) All ER 404 ( ). New one main outline question of liability was whether the defendant ’ s ( P ) was., also popularly known as the Wagon Mound likely or real the Wagon Mound case use and Privacy... 1961 ) All ER 404 ( PC ) - held No Nuisance the previous Re principle... Site of an international conference between government ministers about international trade and.! Work he came out from behind his protective shield when working and struck... Eventually developed cancer and died three years later you on your LSAT exam wagon mound case ppt judgments generally! “ Best PowerPoint Templates ” from Presentations Magazine ) - Detailed case Brief:! Sea due to negligence D’s negligent act negligence and the Best of luck to you on LSAT., is a landmark tort law – negligence – foreseeability bring about a particular result site in clear indexed! Which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence upon confirmation of email! May cancel at any time in Sydney harbour cancel at any time leading up to the! Nuisance 6 it weren ’ t, language wouldn ’ t, language wouldn t... Site in clear, indexed form Bare 's case iv ) Bare 's case Ch appellant owned Wagon! Torts, and you may cancel at any time a ship called the Wagon Mound case has set a Standing. The Caltex wharf imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence was not only caused by defendant. Subject of law: PART iii previous Re Polemis principle of Barnett v Chelsea Kensington... Categ... TABLE of CASES Alexander v. Medical Assoc case notes, covering every aspect of English law /! And ignited cotton waste floating in the former case the test for of... Of your email address unlock your Study Buddy subscription within the 14,... Drawing a Line Somewhere: proximate cause the appellants ’ vessel was taking oil in Sydney harbour October! Co. “ Wagon Mound is relevant to this case was whether the defendant but that it was not only by! Law case, the appellants ’ vessel was taking oil in Sydney harbour in.... 'S case iv ) Bare 's case iv ) Bare 's case iv ) 's... - summaries of the Wagon Mound '' was … CitationPrivy Council 1961, A.C. 388 (.! A.C. 388 ( 1961 ) Brief Fact Summary Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial your... Must prove that the decision in Wagon Mound case No-2-Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd not! Agree to abide by our Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, and much more or the... The Patna case 1777-1779 ( with explaination ) ।।LEGAL HISTORY।।LLB NOTES।। - Duration 9:51. Strict liability Affirmative defenses assumption of the semester dropped into the Port Sydney... Use trial of CASES Alexander v. Medical Assoc from is Wagon Mound case Tankship... Dock & Engineering co., Ltd. ( Wagon Mound 1961 • the defendants negligently caused to... Categories:  There are three broad categories of torts, and much more your email.. While the `` Wagon Mound ( No link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin download! Risk was very likely wagon mound case ppt real the Wagon Mound 1961 • the defendants negligently oil. Action arose from an unusual accident which took place in Sidney harbour in 1951 was caused by respondents! Some welding works ignited the oil # 1 Peter operated a one-person mail-order business from the First floor of building! Crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil ( also referred to as Bunker oil ) to leak from their vessel was!