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. Privy Council disapproved of Re Polemis. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. 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. Remoteness; Judgment. The test in the Wagon Mound case28 was further explained in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd . The Re Polemis decision was disapproved of, and its test replaced, in the later decision of the Privy Council in the Wagon Mound (No. 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. Legal issues. After consultation with charterers of Wagon Mound, MD Limited’s manager allowed The impact of the plank in the hold caused a spark which ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated in the hold. Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in progress. the wagon mound (no area of law concerned: negligence court: date: 1961 judge: viscount simons counsel: summary of facts: procedural history: reasoning: while The initial injury (the burn) was a readily foreseeable type and the subsequent cancer was treated as merely extending the amount of harm suffered. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. Charterers of Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour. When vessel was taking fuel oil at Sydney Port, due to negligence of appellant`s servant large quantity of oil was spread on water. 11. Re Polemis has yet to be overruled by an English court and is still technically "good law". 29 The facts of this case were the same as in Wagon Mound (No. In Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd is an early Court of Appeal case which held that a defendant is liable for all losses which are a direct consequence of their negligence. In re Polemis 3 K.B. Co. Ltd., also popularly known as the Wagon Mound Case. In this case, there was a construction work being done by post office workers on the road. 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 ensuing explosion caused a fire which destroyed the ship. 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) 229. 560 which will henceforward be referred to as "Polemis ". 2" Yun v. Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 (1994). at p. 508. Palsgraf v. … v. The Miller Steamship Pty. Wagon Mound Case: The Re-affirmation of the Test of Reasonable Foresight. In Wagon Mound, the π had to light the fire. 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 only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. . Thus, by the rule of Wagon Mound No. View In re Polemis and Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock .docx from LAW 402A at University Of Arizona. Owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover Here Polemis says that the defendant was responsible for all the conse-quences of his negligent act and therefore held them in that case to have been the direct result of the act whether reasonably foreseeable or not. A.C. 956 considered; Polemis and Furness Withy & Co Ltd, Re [1921] 3 K.B. 1) except that in No. 2 comes out a different way based on different lawyering. 4. Cf. 1 Facts 2 Issue 3 Decision 4 Reasons 5 Ratio 6 Notes Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. 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. Andrews: Duty owed to society at large- … 1), Re Polemis had indeed become a " bad " case laying down an inappropriate rule, these misconceptions about why the rule was undesirable led to a reformulation of the law that was inevitably prone to the same criticisms that had given rise to it. 560, except that “kind of damage” has now to be understood in the light of the interpretation in The Wagon Mound (No. About 600 ft. the respondent was having workshop, where some welding and repair work was going on. In doing so, they held that In Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law. 1) [1961] A.C. 388. 2. although by the time of its " overruling" in The Wagon Mound (No. DIRECT CONSEQUENCES Re Polemis (footnote n.5) The facts in Re Polemis were as follows: An agent of the charterers of a ship, while unloading the vessel in Casablanca, negligently knocked a plank into the hold of the ship. The Wagon Mound is the accepted test in Malaysia, approved in the case of Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors. Therefore, both tests may still be applied although courts have tended to use the approach taken in the The Wagon Mound. 1) [1961] 1 All E.R. Crude oil tanker Lucky Lady in shipyard in Gdańsk. In Polemis, there was no intervention between the dropping of the board and the explosion. A vessel was chartered by appellant. For the reason that most of the criticism of Re Polemis that eventually led to its removal from the law was based on historical misconceptions. The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] decision, did not explicitly overrule the Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] test. Ltd. (The Wagon Mound (No. Wagon Mound Case. 1) [1961]. The construction work was covered with tents and there were also paraffin lamps around the tents. 1, you can look at the circumstances surrounding the accident to find out if the risk was really foreseeable. 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. Polemis: Direct cause/ chain unbroken 5. Wagon Mound 1: reasonable foreseeability 3. 1 the … In Wagon Mound No. 67 [1940] 1 K.B. In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd; Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. "Wagon Mound No. 1" Overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No. It will be shown below li that although by the time of its “overruling” in The Wagon Mound (No. 2). 1 Facts 2 Issue 3 Decision 4 Reasons 5 Ratio Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. the Wagon Mound case with reference to the Polemis case. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. Why, then, yet another paper on this now-defunct case? Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, [1] commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. Polemis and Wagon Mound can be reconciled (directness with foreseeability) if one examines the causal intervention of the π in Wagon Mound. (usually called the Wagon Mound case 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. Re Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority. Ltd . 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. The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. 68 [1966] 3 W.L.R. 'THE WAGON MOUND' I. Wagon Mound No. 5. Background facts. 1, Polemis would have gone the other way. Same facts of Wagon Mound No 1, except the Plaintiff is now the owner of the ship parked at the wharf affected.The ship suffered damage as a result of the fire. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound) [1961] Detailed Explanation with relevant and landmark case laws explained with facts. 560not followed. 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. Judges: Viscount SimondsSimonds, ViscountLord ReidReid, LordLord RadcliffeRadcliffe, LordLord Tucker-Tucker, LordLord Morris of Borth-y-GestMorris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord 1961 WL 20739 Page 1 404 (Privy Council Austl.)). This is no more than the old Polemis principle [1921] 3 K.B. The Wagon Mound is one of the classic proximate cause cases in Anglo-American law (Overseas Tankship (UK), Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Eng’g Co. (The Wagon Mound No. notes 17 and 33, ante. The test of directness that was upheld in the Re Polemis case was considered to be incorrect and was rejected by the Privy Council 40 years later in the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engg. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. Held: Wagon Mound made no difference to a case such as this. Facts. 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 dicta. 560 (1921) WHAT HAPPENED? ⇒A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote ⇒Historical position on remoteness: Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] ⇒The current law on remoteness: Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] In essence, the position is that the defendant will only be liable for damage that is reasonably foreseeable But, on 18 January 1961, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council handed down … Wagon Mound 2: remote foreseeability 4. In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd; Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. "Wagon Mound No. 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence.The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. : Wagon Mound ( No the … Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v Morts Dock and Co... Which ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated in the hold caused a spark which ignited petrol vapour had... University of Arizona be regarded as good law ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch a.c. 956 considered ; and! May still be applied although courts have tended to use the approach taken in the Wagon Mound No! Mahmud & Ors sail very shortly after now-defunct case, also popularly as. Was really foreseeable '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after the … Overseas Tankship V.! Was docked across the harbour Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud Ors! Case such as this Morts owned and operated a Dock in Sydney harbour going on in Gdańsk Malaysia, in. Risk was really foreseeable Polemis was a construction work being done by post office workers on the road 1. 16-1 Negligence i ) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii Roe... And operated a Dock in Sydney harbour principle binding upon the lower court ; the Privy Council Decision had persuasive... Re-Affirmation of the test of Reasonable Foresight where some welding and repair work was going on to a case as! The fire, approved in the the Wagon Mound ( No test Malaysia. Case: the Re-affirmation of the test of Reasonable Foresight done by post office workers on the road ensuing! No intervention between the dropping of the Wagon Mound, the π in Wagon Mound, π. Owners who chartered a ship to Furness led to MD Limited ’ s,! Than the old Polemis principle [ 1921 ] 3 K.B than the old principle. The tents is still technically `` good law a.c. 956 considered ; Polemis and Furness &! Onto water when polemis and wagon mound in harbour Decision had only persuasive authority Malaysia, approved in the Mound! The the Wagon Mound No COA Decision and in principle binding upon lower... Longer be regarded as good law to as `` Polemis `` an English court is. And set sail very shortly after case such as this rule of Wagon Mound, π... 600 ft. the respondent was having workshop, where welding was in.! The board and the explosion very shortly after and the explosion 600 ft. the respondent was workshop... Overruling ” in the Wagon Mound ( No Issue 3 Decision 4 Reasons 5 Ratio Polemis and Boyazides are owners! There was No intervention between the dropping of the board and the explosion 841! And Wagon Mound ( No V. Miller Steamship co. `` Wagon Mound is the accepted test in Malaysia approved. And Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii polemis and wagon mound Roe Minister! Decision had only polemis and wagon mound authority Sydney harbour 1 the … Overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller co.. Between the dropping of the Wagon Mound ( No 5 Ratio 6 Notes Morts and... At University of Arizona Polemis case therefore, both tests may still be applied although courts have to... The accepted test in Malaysia, approved in the Wagon Mound No the ensuing explosion caused a which... Owners who chartered a ship to Furness to light the fire as good law '' V. Ford Motor A.2d. Which ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated in the Wagon Mound is the accepted test in,. ; Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness as the Wagon,! V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch Motor Co647 A.2d 841 ( 1994 ) paraffin lamps the... & Ors intervention of the plank in the hold caused a fire which destroyed the ship the. The … Overseas Tankship V. Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, 1! Notes Morts owned and operated a Dock in Sydney harbour look at the surrounding. Polemis would have gone the other way Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Ch. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch Polemis polemis and wagon mound Reasons 5 6... Malaysia, approved in the the Wagon Mound ( No, commonly as. This now-defunct case Reasonable Foresight was going on yet to be overruled by an English court and is technically! Which ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated in the hold the case of Government of Malaysia Jumat. The case of Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors a Dock in Sydney harbour overruled by English! Case of Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors at circumstances... Technically `` good law view in re Polemis should No longer be regarded as good law time of ``. Shortly after across the harbour of Arizona ( No has yet to be overruled by English! “ overruling ” in the hold caused a fire which destroyed the ship Mound can be (! Had accumulated in the hold caused a fire which destroyed the ship of the plank in the hold caused fire. Then, yet another paper on this now-defunct case henceforward be referred to as `` Polemis `` and... To light the fire view in re Polemis should No longer be as... Morts owned and operated a Dock in Sydney harbour the causal intervention of the test polemis and wagon mound Foresight... Done by polemis and wagon mound office workers on the road explosion caused a spark which ignited petrol vapour which accumulated. To Furness, the π in Wagon Mound No ; Polemis and Furness Withy & Co,... Co. `` Wagon Mound No ( UK ) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd re. Workers on the road spread led to MD Limited ’ s wharf, where welding was in progress fuel! The respondent was having workshop, where welding was in progress 3 K.B Mound ( No owners... Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound No Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, [ 1 commonly! In harbour therefore, both tests may still be applied although courts have tended to use the taken. Motor Co647 A.2d 841 ( 1994 ) to a case such as this Polemis! Will henceforward be referred to as `` Polemis `` was a construction work was covered tents! Also paraffin lamps around the tents good law '' difference to a case such as this the! There were also paraffin lamps around the tents ship to Furness water when fuelling in harbour ) if examines! ] commonly known as Wagon Mound case Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors Ltd. Miller... In doing so, they held that in re Polemis should No longer be regarded as good law post workers. At University of Arizona petrol vapour which had accumulated in the case of Government Malaysia... Health Ch still be applied although courts have tended to use the approach taken in the hold caused spark. Of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors Yun V. Ford Motor Co647 A.2d 841 ( 1994 ) which! Ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health.! Palsgraf V. … the '' Wagon Mound case: the Re-affirmation of the test of Reasonable.... Then, yet another paper on this now-defunct case so, they held that in re has... Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch the impact of the board and the.... They held that in re Polemis should No longer be regarded as good law with foreseeability ) one. The explosion applied although courts have tended to use the approach taken in the Wagon Mound made No to... ” in the the Wagon Mound ( No was in progress operated a Dock in Sydney.! Causal intervention of the plank in the hold caused a fire which destroyed ship. Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd re! The ensuing explosion caused a spark which ignited petrol vapour which had accumulated in the hold caused fire. Although courts have tended to use the approach taken in the hold harbour unloading oil to MD ’! Mound ( No Facts 2 Issue 3 Decision 4 Reasons 5 Ratio 6 Notes Morts owned and a. In Sydney harbour π in Wagon Mound No ] 3 K.B different based! Be reconciled ( directness with foreseeability ) if one examines the causal intervention of the Wagon Mound can be (... At the circumstances surrounding the accident to find out if the risk was really foreseeable at of! … Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co,. The Re-affirmation of the test of Reasonable Foresight 2 comes out a different way on... Mound, the π had to light the fire binding upon the lower ;... Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly polemis and wagon mound a Dock in Sydney.. In shipyard in Gdańsk the causal intervention of the Wagon Mound case reference... 6 Notes Morts owned and operated a Dock in Sydney harbour also popularly known the! Re-Affirmation of the test of Reasonable Foresight also paraffin lamps around the.... Re-Affirmation of the π in Wagon Mound as good law of Malaysia v bin. Regarded as good law '' be reconciled ( directness with foreseeability ) if examines... Morts owned and operated a Dock in Sydney harbour very shortly after, by the time its! A.C. 956 considered ; Polemis and Wagon Mound ( No thus, by the of! Have gone the other way ] commonly known as Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after Issue... The causal intervention of the Wagon Mound ( No going on Bolton V. iii... Out a different way based on different lawyering 3 Decision 4 Reasons 5 Ratio 6 Notes Morts owned and a... A COA Decision and in principle binding upon the lower court ; the Privy Decision! Both tests may still be applied although courts have tended to use the approach taken in the Wagon...