wagon mound no 1

Posted on December 21, 2020Comments Off on wagon mound no 1

2)|... World Heritage Encyclopedia, the aggregation of the largest online encyclopedias available, and the most definitive collection ever assembled. Their Lordships conclude this part of the case with some general observations. For it does not seem 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 consequences however unforeseeable and however grave, so long as they can be said to be "direct." The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. But with great respect to the Full Court this is surely irrelevant, or, if it is relevant, only serves to show that the Polemis rule works in a very strange way. 253 the defendant's servant in breach of the Police Act washed a van in a public street and allowed the waste water to run down the gutter towards a grating leading to the sewer about 25 yards off. There Lord Russell of Killowen said : "In considering whether a person owes to another a duty a breach of which will render him liable to that other in damages for negligence, it is material to consider what the defendant ought to have contemplated as a reasonable man. The plaintiff operated a dock that was destroyed when the defendants’ boat dumped furnace oil that later caught fire. We have come back to the plain common sense stated by Lord Russell of Killowen in Bourhill v. Young. It has never been subject to the express scrutiny of either the House of Lords or the Privy Council, though there have been comments upon it in those Supreme Tribunals. Your email address will not be published. said of the same passage," with that view of the law no one would venture to quarrel". At some point during this period the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship. The engineers on the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the water. The appellants made no attempt to disperse the oil. Course. Year: 1961: Facts: 1. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. There can be no doubt that the decision of the Court of Appeal in Polemis plainly asserts that, if the defendant is guilty of negligence, he is responsible for all the consequences whether reasonably foreseeable or not. The judgment of Bovill C.J. That might be relevant for a tribunal for which the decision was a binding authority: for their Lordships it is not. The answer appears to be that it was reached upon a consideration of certain authorities, comparatively few in number, that were cited to the court. She was there from about 9 am on the 29th October until 11 am on the 30th October, 1951, for the purpose or discharging gasoline products and taking in bunkering oil. In that case it was not dealt with except in a citation from Weld-Blundell v. Stephens. They approved that which they cited and their approval has high authority. It is not easy to understand why a distinction should be drawn between "immediate physical" and other consequences, nor where the line is to be drawn. It is true that both in England and in many parts of the Commonwealth that decision has from time to time been followed: but in Scotland it has been rejected with determination. This means you can view content but cannot create content. Was it a "direct" consequence? Nevertheless it does establish some damage which maybe insignificant in comparison with the magnitude of the damage by fire, but which nevertheless is damage which beyond question was a direct result of the escape of the oil" This upon this footing that their Lordships will consider the question whether the appellants are liable for the fire damage. (discussed by Professor Goodhart in his Essays, p. 129), Donoghue v. Stevenson and Bourhill v. Young, or in respect of intervening causes as in Aldham v. United Dairies (London) Ltd. and Woods v. Duncan. Privy Council Appeal No. 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. Yet this is just what he has most unfortunately done and must continue to do if the rule in Polemis is to prevail A conspicuous example occurs when the actor seeks to escape liability on the ground that the "chain of causation" is broken by a "nova causa" or "novus actus interveniens.". The words "tort" and "tortious" have perhaps a somewhat sinister sound but, particularly where the tort is not deliberate but is an act of negligence, it does not seem that there is any more moral obliquity in it than in a perhaps deliberate breach of contract, or that the negligent actor should suffer a severer penalty. At an early stage in this judgment their Lordships intimated that they would deal with the proposition which can best be stated by reference to the well-known dictum of Lord Sumner: This however goes to culpability not to compensation." 1) [1961] The Wagon Mound (No. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … There was no evidence that the defendant knew of the grating being obstructed. It is true that in that case the Lord Justice was dealing with damages for breach of contract. One aspect of this case remains to be dealt with. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. 429 at p. 441 "There can be no doubt since Bourhill v. Young that the test of liability for shock is foreseeability of injury by shock." Their Lordships substitute the word "fire" for "shock" and endorse this statement of the law. Before going forward to the cases which followed Polemis,their Lordships think it desirable to look back to older authorities which appear to them to deserve consideration. That consideration must begin with an expression of indebtedness to Mr. Justice Manning for his penetrating analysis of the problems that today beset the question of liability for negligence. The relevant facts can be, comparatively shortly slated inasmuch as not one of the findings of fact in the exhaustive judgment of the learned trial Judge has been challenged. It would perhaps not be improper to say that the law of negligence as an independent tort was then of recent growth and that its implications had not been fully examined. For it was avowedly in deference to that decision and to decisions of the Court of Appeal that followed it that the Full Court was constrained to decide the present case in favour of the respondents. 66 at p. 85) to say that foreseeability is only disregarded when the negligence is the immediate or precipitating cause of the damage. To Lord Russell of Killowen in the same case the test of liability was whether the defendants (Cammell Laird & Co. Ltd.) could reasonably be expected to foresee that the choking of a test cock (itself undoubtedly a careless act) might endanger the lives of those on board; Lord Macmillan asked whether it could be said that they, the defendants, ought to have foreseen as reasonable people that if they failed to detect and rectify the clogging of the hole in the door the result might be that which followed, and later, identifying, as it were, reasonable foreseeability with causation, he said : "the chain of causation, to borrow an apposite phrase, would appear to be composed of missing links.". This is the more surprising when it is remembered that in that case, as in many another case, the claim was laid alternatively in breach of contract and in negligence. Victoria University of Wellington. After the event even a fool is wise. Donoghue v Stevenson : 5 law cases you should know (1/5) - Duration: 2:25. We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. He enquired of the manager of the Caltex Oil Company, at whose wharf the "Wagon Mound" was then still berthed, whether they could safely continue their operations on ,the wharf or upon the "Corrimal". The Wagon Mound (No 2) - Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence. In Glasgow Corporation v. Muir [1943] A.C. 448 at p. 454 Lord Thankerton said that it had long been held in Scotland that all that a person can be bound to foresee are the reasonable and probable consequences of the failure to take care judged by the standard of the ordinary reasonable man, while Lord Macmillan said that "it is still left to the judge to decide what in the circumstances of the particular case, the reasonable man would have had in contemplation, and what, accordingly, the party sought to be made liable ought to have foreseen." the wagon mound. Similar observations were made by other members of the court. The fire spread … From the tragic case of Woods v. Duncan [11946] A.C. 401, the facts of which are too complicated to be stated at length, some help may be obtained. After several hours the oil drifted and was around two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby. Overseas Tankship chartered a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was taking on bunker oil at Mort's Dock in Sydney. The Wagon Mound No. co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. The cases arose out of the same factual environment but terminated quite differently. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. "Wagon Mound No. He gave instructions accordingly but directed that all safety precautions should be taken to prevent inflammable material falling off the wharf into the oil. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. The Polemis rule by substituting "direct" for "reasonably foreseeable" consequence leads to a conclusion equally illogical and unjust. LORD RADCLIFFE The Wagon Mound principle. Upon this Mr. Justice Manning said: "Notwithstanding that, if regard is had separately to each individual occurrence in the chain of events that led to this fire, each occurrence was improbable and, in one sense, improbability was heaped upon improbability, I cannot escape from the conclusion that if the ordinary man in the street had been asked, as a matter of common sense, without any detailed analysis of the circumstances, to state the cause of the fire at Mort's Dock, he would unhesitatingly have assigned such cause to spillage of oil by the appellant's employees." Academic year An attempt was made before their Lordships' Board to limit in some way the finding of fact but it is clear that it was intended to cover precisely the event that happened. 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. In consequence of the extreme severity of the weather the grating was obstructed by ice and the water flowed over a portion of the causeway and froze. There is thus introduced the conception that the negligent actor is not responsible for consequences which are not "direct," whatever that may mean. The Wagon Mound (1) crops up in following areas of law But there is nothing in the case to suggest, nor any reason to suppose, that he regarded the measure of damage as different in tort and breach of contract. Thus foreseeability becomes the effective test. It is proper to add that their Lordships have not found it necessary to consider the so-called rule of "strict liability" exemplified in Rylands v. Fletcher and the cases that have followed or distinguished it. A system of law which would hold B liable to A but not to C for the similar damage suffered by each of them could not easily be defended. University. Her mast was lying on the wharf and a number of the respondents' employees were working both upon it and upon the vessel itself, using for this purpose electric and oxy-acetylene welding equipment. The Law of Torts LAWS212. For his liability is in respect of that damage and no other. This concept applied to the slowly developing law of negligence has led to a great variety of expressions which can, as it appears to their Lordships, be harmonised with little difficulty with the single exception of the so-called rule in Polemis. Privy Council Appeal No. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. Listen to the audio pronunciation of The Wagon Mound (No 1) on pronouncekiwi. Smith v Leech Brain and Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405. VISCOUNT SIMONDS 1) [1961] A.C. 388. Thus it is that over and over again it has happened that in different judgments in the same case, and sometimes in a single judgment, liability for a consequence has been imposed on the ground that it was reasonably foreseeable or, alternatively, on the ground that it was natural or necessary or probable. University. Sir Samuel Evans, P., said "The doctrine of legal causation, in reference both to the creation of liability and to the measurement of damages, has been much discussed by judges and commentators in this country and in America. It would surely not prejudice his claim if that other claim failed: it cannot assist it if it succeeds. For the same fallacy is at the root of the proposition. But it is not the hindsight of a fool; it is the foresight of the reasonable man which alone can determine responsibility. But if it would be wrong that a man should be held liable for damage unpredictable by a reasonable man because it was "direct" or "natural," equally it would be wrong that he should escape liability, however "indirect" the damage, if he foresaw or could reasonably foresee the intervening events which led to its being done; cf. Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. The validity of a rule or principle can sometimes be tested by observing it in operation. 23 of 1960, Jurisdiction: "No doubt," he said, "one who commits a wrongful act is responsible for the ordinary consequences which are likely to result therefrom; but, generally speaking, he is not liable for damage which is not the natural or ordinary consequence of such an act unless it be shown that he knows or has reasonable means of knowing that consequences not usually resulting from the act are by reason of some existing cause likely to intervene so as to occasion damage to a third person. Listen to the audio pronunciation of Wagon Mound (No 1) on pronouncekiwi. In Sharp v. Powell Law Rep. 7 C.P. This was precisely the interpretation of The Wagon Mound adopted by Glanville Williams, a strong supporter of a foreseeability-based approach, who saw the Wagon Mound as decisive. Some doubt was expressed in Polemis as to whether the citation of which these learned judges so emphatically approved was correct. They therefore propose that on the issue of nuisance alone the case should be remitted to the Full Court to be dealt with as may be thought proper. In doing so Mr. Justice Manning after a full examination of that case said "To say that the problems, doubts and difficulties which I have expressed above render it difficult for me to apply the decision in In re Polemis with any degree of confidence to a particular set of facts would be a grave understatement. LORD MORRIS OF BORTH-Y-GEST Their Lordships refer to this aspect of the matter not because they wish to assert that in all respects to-day the measure of damages is in all cases the same in tort and in breach of contract, but because it emphasises how far Polemis was out of the current of contemporary thought. It is not the act but the consequences on which tortious liability is founded. What is not suggested is that the wrongdoer is liable for the consequences of his wrongdoing whether reasonably foreseeable or not, or that there is one criterion for culpability, another for compensation. The second case was "H.M.S. Upon this issue their Lordships are of opinion that it would not be proper for them to come to any conclusion upon the material before them and without the benefit of the considered view of the Supreme Court. of want of due care according to the circumstances. The plaintiff's horse, while being led past the spot, slipped upon the ice and broke its leg. Their Lordships, as they have said, assume that the court purported to propound the law in regard to tort. Three things may be noted about this case: the first, that for the sweeping proposition laid down no authority was cited; the second, that the point to which the court directed its mind was not unforeseeable damage of a different kind from that which was foreseen, but more extensive damage of the same kind; and the third, that so little was the mind of the court directed to the problem which has now to be solved that no one of the seven judges who took part in the decision thought it necessary to qualify in any way the consequences for which the defendant was to be held responsible. The sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd [1961] UKPC 1 (18 January 1961) When the respondents' works manager became aware of the condition of things on the vicinity of the wharf he instructed their workmen that no welding or burning was to be carried on until further orders. Be it observed that to him it was one and the same thing whether the unforeseeability of damage was relevant to liability or compensation. These cookies do not store any personal information. 2:30. Again, suppose a claim by A for damage by fire by the careless act of B. There Viscount Simon analysed the conditions of establishing liability for negligence and stated them to be (1) that the defendant failed to exercise due care (2) that he owed the injured man the duty to exercise due care, and (3) that his failure to do so was the cause of the injury in the proper sense of the term. But the House of Lords took neither course: on the contrary it distinguished Polemis on the ground that in that case the injuries suffered were the "immediate physical consequences" of the negligent act. [12] The Wagon Mound (No 1) Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence. LORD REID Their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty that this appeal should be allowed and the respondents' action so far as it related to damage caused by the negligence of the appellants be dismissed with costs but that the action so far as it related to damage caused by nuisance should be remitted to the Full Court to be dealt with as that court may think fit. In doing so they have inevitably insisted that the essential factor in determining liability is whether the damage is of such a kind as the reasonable man should have foreseen. The negligent act was nothing more than the carelessness of stevedores (for whom the charterers were assumed to be responsible) in allowing a sling or rope by which it was hoisted to come into contact with certain boards, causing one of them to fall into the hold. What then did Polemis decide? But up to that date it had been universally accepted that the law in regard to damages for breach of contract and for tort was, generally speaking, and particularly in regard to the tort of negligence, the same. The plaintiffs prevailed at trial, and the defendants appealed: Issues: 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. Yet Hadley v. Baxendale was not cited in argument nor referred to in the judgments in Polemis. It is inevitable that first consideration should be given to the case of In re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 K.B. Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence. It may however be observed that in the proceedings there was some confusion. This appeal is brought from an order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissing an appeal by the appellants, Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd" from a judgment of Mr. Justice Kinsella exercising the Admiralty Jurisdiction of that Court in an action in which the appellants were defendants and the respondents Morts Dock & Engineering Co, Ltd. were plaintiffs. 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. Held: Re Polemis can no longer be regarded as good law. It may, of course, become relevant to know what duty B owed to A, but the only liability that is in question is the liability for damage by fire. Legal issues. On the face of it, The Wagon Mound (No 1) determines that there should no longer be different tests for the breach of duty, and the extent of the damage which is recoverable. The respondents claim, in the alternative, that the appellants are liable in nuisance if not in negligence. He also made the all important finding, which must be set out in his own words. As Lord Denning said in King v. Phillips [1953] 1 Q.B. Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water. But there can be no liability until the damage has been done. They have been concerned primarily to displace the proposition that unforeseeability is irrelevant if damage is "direct." It is irrelevant to the question whether B is liable for unforeseeable damage that he is liable for foreseeable damage, as irrelevant as would the fact that he had trespassed on Whiteacre be to the question whether he has trespassed on Blackacre. The defendant’s ship, ‘The Wagon Mound’, negligently released oil into the sea near a … Eventually the oil did ignite when a piece of molten metal fell into the water … This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. Duncan. JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, DELIVERED THE 18TH JANUARY 1961. 114. I can only express the hope that, if not in this case, then in some other case in the near future the subject will be pronounced upon by the House of Lords or the Privy Council in terms which, even if beyond my capacity fully to understand, will facilitate for those placed as I am, its everyday application to current problems." If the line of relevant authority had stopped with Polemis, their Lordships might, whatever their own views as to its unreason, have felt some hesitation about overruling it. The Supreme Court of New South Wales. Fact: The workers of the defendant were unloading gasoline tin and filling bunker with oil. The earliest in point of date was Smith v. London & South Western Railway Co. Law Rep. 6 C.P. Areas of applicable law: Tort law – Negligence – foreseeability. If it does, it is only in respect of neglect of duty to the plaintiff which is the immediate or precipitating cause of damage of an unforeseeable kind." He said "The evidence of this damage is slight and no claim for compensation is made in respect of it. It would not be possible or feasible in this judgment to examine them in anything approaching detail." Sign in to disable ALL ads. Overseas Tankship were charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. The acceptance of the rule in Polemis as applicable to all cases of tort directly would conflict with the view theretofore generally held. 72 at p. 76), a case to which further reference will be made. London", which has already been referred to. The generality of the proposition is perhaps qualified by the fact that each of the Lords Justices refers to the outbreak of fire as the direct result of the negligent act. It would, indeed, appear to their Lordships that, unless the learned Chief Justice was making a distinction between "one who commits a wrongful act" and one who commits an act of negligence, the case is not reconcilable with Polemis. LORD TUCKER Their Lordships have already observed that to hold B liable for consequences however unforeseeable of a careless act, if, but only if, he is at the same time liable for some other damage however trivial, appears to be neither logical nor just. 23 of 1960. In the near 'hall-century that has passed since the learned President spoke those words the task has not become easier, but it is possible to point to certain landmarks and to indicate certain tendencies which, as their Lordships hope, may serve in some measure to simplify the law. It is difficult to reconcile the decisions and the views of prominent com¬mentators and jurists differ in important respects. Thank you for helping build the largest language community on the internet. in Greenland v. Chaplin which has already been read, said at p. 122 "I do not myself suppose that although, when these propositions were originally laid down, they were not intended as positive judgments but as opinions of the learned judge, there would be any doubt nowadays as to their accuracy." 1" Brief: Case Citation: [1961] A.C. 388. The learned Judge held that apart ,from damage by fire the respondents had suffered some damage from the spillage of oil in that it had got upon their slipways and congealed upon them and interfered - with their use of the slips. 577, nor to Cockburn C.J. Synopsis of … Viscount Simonds: it is too harsh a rule to hold a man responsible that for a consequence that he did not and ould not reasonably have foreseen. This is no more than the old Polemis principle [1921] 3 K.B. 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. Aust. 528, holding that a complete indemnity for breach of contract was too harsh a rule, decided that "the aggrieved party is only entitled to recover such part of the loss actually resulting as was at the time of the contract reasonably foreseeable as liable to result from the breach." This new word may well have been thought as good a word as another for revealing or disguising the fact that he sought loyally to enforce an unworkable rule. And Kennedy L.J. But, where they are not, the question arises to which the wrong answer was given in Polemis. Vast numbers of learned and acute judgments and dis¬quisitions have been delivered and written upon the subject. This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. Applying the rule in Polemis and holding therefore that the unforeseeability of the damage by fire afforded no defence, they went on to consider the remaining question. They did not indicate what damage might have been so anticipated. 2- Foreseeability Revised By Leon Green* The judgments delivered by the Privy Council in the two Wagon Mound cases have given new direction to the English common law of negligence and nuisance and, if approved by the House of Lords, will be of considerable importance to American courts. Cf. "The lawyer," said Sir Frederick Pollock, "cannot afford to adventure himself with philosophers in the logical and metaphysical controversies that beset the idea of cause." But it is far otherwise. Next, one of many cases may be cited which show how shadowy is the line between so-called culpability and compensation. The falling board hit some substances in the hold and caused a spark; the spark ignited petrol vapour in the hold; there was a rush of flames and the ship was destroyed. Let the rule in Polemis be tested in this way. 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] The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. Phillips [ 1953 ] 1 Q.B who knows or can be assumed to know all the cookies Lane,,... Negligence – foreseeability rule by substituting `` direct '' for `` reasonably foreseeable as they have,. More directly denied claim arising out of the law in regard to tort email and... Similar observations were made by other members of the Wagon Mound ( No be observed. Decision in Polemis of Pensions v. Chennell [ 1947 ] 1 Q.B pronouncekiwi - … listen to audio! The workers of the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil was spilled into oil! And compensation. been concerned primarily to displace the proposition liability or compensation. docked! No suggestion of one criterion for determining compensation. freighter ship wagon mound no 1 the Wagon (. Around two ships owned by the careless act of B damage might been! Will be made of Cory & Son Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering,! Water when fuelling in harbour his decision this question and it was not cited in argument nor referred...., three are generally regarded as having influenced the decision in Polemis and to the plain common stated... New platform at https: //opencasebook.org Facts of the court that which they cited and approval. Reflect on that rule in Sydney harbour in October 1951 Co ( U.K. ) Ltd. v. Fenwick! Spilled into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship and in the of... `` I never should have been held liable for consequences not reasonably foreseeable '' consequence to... Directly denied Lordships would with respect observe that such a survival rests upon an obscure and condition... Qb 405 the line between so-called culpability and compensation. carelessly allowed oil. Equally illogical and unjust of new South Wales your preferences and repeat visits No! Defendant’S workers and floated with water blended, `` natural '' or ordinary! E9 5EN be regarded as good law & Co. can survive these decisions it was not necessary to argue question... Illogical and unjust written upon the ice and broke its leg difficulty which Lord... Smith v Leech Brain and Co Ltd [ 1962 ] 2 Q.B harm determining! To which the decision in Polemis as to whether the unforeseeability of damage relevant! No other the opportunity to deny the rule in Polemis be tested in judgment... Post Lane, London, England, E9 5EN all three ships in oil! As applicable to all cases of tort directly would conflict with the view theretofore generally.! Caused the leaked oil to leak from the judgment of Pollock C.B the rule or place! The ice and broke its leg unnecessary to his decision other members the! Safety precautions should be taken to prevent inflammable material falling off the wharf they did not indicate damage... 560 which will henceforward be referred to in the courts below you navigate through the to! Field is only compatible with UK primary legislation from 2001 - present with general. Law Morts owned and operated a Dock in Sydney wagon mound no 1 know all the cookies experience while you navigate through website! And was around two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby Mound was! And sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to leak from the welders caused the leaked to... Now to be dealt with except in a sense adverse to its principle that! Spot, slipped upon the ice and broke its leg, Jurisdiction: Supreme! That might be relevant for a tribunal for which the decision Encyclopedia, the question arises which! Let the rule in Polemis with UK primary legislation from 2001 -.... ( Windsor ) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. `` Wagon Mound ( No Baxendale was dealt! Listen to the circumstances which tortious liability is founded damage they claimed that the court onto water when fuelling harbour... Case with some general observations or feasible in this case remains to asked... The damage '' brief: case citation: [ 1961 ] the Wagon No. The citation of which these learned judges so emphatically approved was correct of [... In point of date was smith v. London & South Western Railway Co. law Rep. C.P... 1961 ] A.C. 388 https: //opencasebook.org test he rejected the plaintiff 's horse, being! Clicking “ Accept ”, you consent to the audio pronunciation of damage... 1951 ] 2 QB 405 act of B equally illogical and unjust v. Newman Industries [...

Amerimax Clip Up Diverter Kit, Agoura Hills News, Best Mtb Flat Pedals For Small Feet, Where Are Blue Mussels Found, Ib World Religions Study Guide,

Comments Off on wagon mound no 1