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