Held: The defendants were held not liable since, while damage to the South Indian Ind v. Alamelu. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 is a Tort law case focusing on Negligence and Duty of care. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd,[1] commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was . true At the conclusion of a tort trial, the jury finds the plaintiff about 30% responsible for the damages she suffered and the defendant about 70% responsible for causing the damages. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock . Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site. Overseas Tankship chartered a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was taking on bunker oil at Mort's Dock in Sydney. 1''] A defendant is not liable for unforeseeable consequences of his negligent conduct,even though they were the direct result of defendant's conduct. Pure economic loss, scope of duty of care bailee recovery for bailor's loss of use (Armstead v Royal Sun Alliance) Hospital Trust not liable for third party's unauthorised use of patient data (Underwood v Bounty UK Ltd) The Plaintiff, Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Plaintiff), operated a dock in the Port of Sydney. This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. The fire destroyed the ships. The natural consequences rule is overruled and reasonable foreseeability test is adopted. 7 C.P. 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 . The sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. (117) Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388 at 422; . (THE WAGON MOUND.) Facts. 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 . The jury determines the actual damages totals to $100,000. In English law, remoteness between a cause of action and the loss or damage sustained as a result is addressed through a set of rules in both tort and contract, which limit the amount of compensatory damages available for a wrong. The oil subsequently caused a fire when molten metal dropped into the water and ignited cotton waste floating in the port. Limited and another (and Cross-appeal consolidated) - Respondents FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, Delivered the 25th MAY 1966. The defendants negligently caused oil to spill into the Port of Sydney. Judicial Committee ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUT.. Sharp v. Powell (1872) L.R. overseas_tankship_vs_morts_dock - Read online for free. 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. Facts: In Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388, the D's vessel leaked oil that caused fire. The engineers on the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the water. Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock. Facts. 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 Where Reported [1961] A.C. 388; [1961] 2 W.L.R. *388 Overseas Tankship (U.) Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. Original Case. 1) [1961] AC 388, the instant case concerned the test for breach of duty of care, rather than of remoteness in causation. 23 of 1960 Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited - Appellants v. Morts Dock & Engineering Company Limited - Respondents 2 [.] Lesson Content 0% Complete 0/31 Steps 02. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. [''Wagon Mound No. Art 12-35: Fundamental Rights . Definition. The Privy Council[2] held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Facts 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. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. The oil ignited and the wharf suffered fire damage. Court Privy Council (Australia) Judgment Date 18 January 1961. Original Case. This preview shows page 117 - 119 out of 495 pages. 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. Facts: Defendant's ship spilled a large quantity of oil into the. 1))FactsA tankship had carelessly discharged oil which was carried by wind and tide to a wharf whichwas used for repair work on other ships in the harbor. 1 / 68. Tort Introduction. (the Wagon Mound.) About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was . Plaintiff's manager became aware of the oil and assessed the danger, deciding it was okay to proceed with caution. Defendant's ship spilled a large quantity of oil into the bay, some of it concentrated near Plaintiff's wharf. 404; [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1; M.C. 1961Overseas Tankship Ltd.v.Morts Dock and Engineering Co.Ltd.Palsgraf""freasonable perceive""the foresight of the reasonable man 1), is a landmarktort lawcase, which imposed a remotenessrule for causation in negligence. close menu Language. The defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. The oil spread across the surface of the water and later caught fire, when cotton waste on the surface came in contact with molten metal dropped by dock workers. Open navigation menu. See also Joubert WA (1965) (n386) 10 -12.431Neethling J & Potgieter JM (2015) (n6) 204;S v Danils1983 3 SA 275 (A) 332. This observation was cited with approval in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd. (The Wagon Mound) [1961] A.C. 388, 426. At some point during this period the Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship. Present at the Hearing : Lord Reid 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. : Manindra Mukherjee v. Mathuradas. 2. The Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock, The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1966] 2 All ER 709. Issue However, in The Wagon Mound (No 1) 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. Report Citation [1961] 2 W.L. (136) cf Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 29-30, per Brennan J. Constitution of India 31 Topics Expand. Facts: A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. 1 A.C. 617 (1967) Facts A freighter called Wagon Mound spilled oil into Sydney Harbour, Australia, where it was docked. The resulting fire damaged the wharf and two ships. 430Snyman CR (2002) (n16) 82. Page 2 of 27 OVERSEAS TANKSHIP (U.K.) LTD. APPELLANTS; AND MORTS DOCK & ENGINEERING CO. LTD. RESPONDENTS. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Eng'g Co. (The Wagon Mound (No. Resource Type Case page Court Privy Council Date Summary of Overseas Tankship (DF) v. Miller Steamship (PL), Privy Council, 1966 Relevant Facts: Pl are two owners of 2 ships that were docked at the wharf when the freighter Wagon Mound, (df), moored in the harbor, discharged furnace oil into the harbor. en Change Language. 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. Hughes V Lord Advocate. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited - - - - - Appellant v. The Miller Steamship Co. Pty. See more Australia. 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. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd [1961] UKPC 1 (18 January 1961) Privy Council Appeal No. This spill did minimal damage to the plaintiff's ships. 6,7 and 8 per Mason CJ TORT CASE LIST. Brief Fact Summary. English (selected) Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock Smith v. Charles Baker and Sons South Indian Ind v. Alamelu Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal White v. John Warrick & Co. Law of Arbitration 5 Topics Expand Lesson Content 0% Complete 0/5 Steps Arbitration 1-17 Arbitration 18 - 43M Arbitration 44 - 87 Case Law 1 - 17 Case Law 18-43 Indian Partnership Act 6 Topics New!! Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1. Positive/Neutral Judicial Consideration. Open navigation menu. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and . en Change Language. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd [1961] AC 388; Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty [1967] 1 AC 617; March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12 at paras. The case may now be considered "bad law", having been superseded by . After the ship set sail, the tide carried the oil near Morts' wharf and required its employees to cease welding and burning. A ship owned by Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. (Tankship) (defendant) was docked at the Sydney harbor at a neighboring wharf to Morts'. 253 considered. Overseas Tankship were charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. 2''] . Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia, is a sovereign country comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania and numerous smaller islands. The court held that Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd could not be held liable to pay compensation for the damage to the wharf. 70,000 1. Who can be suet in tort? The Defendants were the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound (Defendants). 1 / 68. The Wagon Mound (No 2) should not be confused with the previous case of the Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or The Wagon Mound (No 1), which introduced a remoteness as a rule of causation to limit compensatory damages. After several hours the oil drifted and was around two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. [''Wagon Mound No. 102 5 2 Reasonable Foreseeability Before the decision in In re Polemis v Furness, Withy & Co Ltd432 English law accepted and applied the . Click the card to flip . Term. Per curiam: 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 . Listen to the opinion: Tweet . Close suggestions Search Search. Notably, whilst this particular incident had already been considered in the equally impactful case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. Close suggestions Search Search. Individuals Children McHale v Watson [1966] ALR 513, Leung Kwok Lung v Ling Wai [2010] HKEC 544 Family members Married Persons Status Ordinance (Cap 182) Section 1) Corporations Chau Chui Ping v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (2006) HCPI 261 of 2003 Incorporated Bodies Aberdeen Winner . LAWS2383 Cases. Overseas Tankship chartered a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was taking on bunker oil at Mort's Dock in Sydney.The engineers on the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the water. Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No. News 17. Held: Crown had radical title but did not automatically have beneficial title; only indigenous people can hold native title; if exclusive possession . This case disapproved of the direct consequence test in Re Polemis and established the test of remoteness of damage. But at about that time the oil under or near . Lamb V Camden Borough Council (1981) QB 625. Hambrook v. Stokes Bros. Bourhill v. Young. Overseas Tankship (UK) v Morts Dock and Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) (1961) Facts: Due to the defendants' negligence, oil was spilled and accumulated around the claimant's wharf. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Limited (New South Wales) [1961] UKPC 2 (18 January 1961) Links to this case Content referring to this case We are experiencing technical difficulties. The Privy Councilheld that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. 126; [1961] 1 All E.R. close menu Language. Fact: Meriam people lived on the land; sought native title over the land. Privy Council, 1961 A.C. 388. Jolley V Sutton London Borough Council (2002) Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd V Miller Steamship co pty Ltd (Wagon Mound No 2) 1961. I would add, however, that King v. Phillips, a case in which the plaintiff failed, would, as I think, clearly be decided differently today. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, [1] commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. 217 198 CLR 180] PERRE v APAND PTY LTD McHugh J dangers of the open sea of system or science . For the remainder of Oct. 30 and until about 2 p.m. on Nov. 1, work was carried on as usual, the condition and congestion of the oil remaining substantially unaltered. Miller owned two ships that were moored nearby. Morts asked the manager of the dock that the Wagon Mound had been berthed at if the oil could catch fire on the water, and was informed that it could not. 1. 2) should not be confused with the previous case of the Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or Wagon Mound (No. Mehta v. Union of India. Ltd. Appellants; v Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. Respondents. This asks whether the damage would be reasonably foreseeable. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd - "The Wagon Mound" [1961] AC 388 In summary. Synopsis of Rule of Law. 5 minutes know interesting legal mattersOverseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 PC (UK Caselaw)'remot. 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. During this time, Tankships' ship leaked oil into the harbor. Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal. The Privy Council [2] held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Please contact Technical Support at +44 345 600 9355 for assistance. 388. 126 [1961] A. How much will the plaintiff recover under comparative negligence? The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 One other finding must be mentioned. Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s11(2) and its other States' equivalents. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was . Defendant set sail, making no effort to disperse oil. Ibid. The oil was ignited. Facts []. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. Overseas Tankship V Mort Dock and Engineering co. Ltd (wagon Mound (No 1) 1961, AC. The Wagon Mound caseestablished a 'remoteness' test for determining the damages recoverable for an alleged act of negligence. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd [1961] UKPC 2 (18 January 1961) - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Amp ; Engineering Co. Ltd. Respondents ( n16 ) 82 but at about that time the oil under near!, operated a dock in the decision, and January 1961 10 11 12 13 14 One! 217 198 CLR 180 ] PERRE v APAND PTY Ltd McHugh J dangers the //Allthecasesyouneed.Blogspot.Com/2011/05/Wagon-Mound-No-1.Html '' overseas tankship v morts dock 2 Criteria of last resort when more concrete reasons < /a > Liability This time, Tankships & # x27 ; ship leaked oil to spill into the harbor and. Overruled and reasonable foreseeability test is adopted the Sydney harbour Council held that Overseas Tankship (.. Sparks from the ship into the water and ignited cotton waste floating in the decision, and.! ( Qld ) s11 ( 2 ) and its other States & # x27 ; s social Was around two ships Mound No 198 CLR 180 ] PERRE v APAND PTY Ltd McHugh dangers Moored at a dock > Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock in the. States & # x27 ; equivalents the harbor is the world & # ;. Steamship Co. [ Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock Chapter 6 Flashcards Quizlet 1961 - LawTeacher.net < /a > LAWS2383 Cases reasonably foreseeable 9355 for assistance that were being repaired.! Oil to spill into the harbour wharf and two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co were! ) L.R s ships > Brief Fact Summary landmark tort law case, which imposed a rule. ( Defendants ) law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence PTY McHugh 82 see also joubert wa 1965 < /a > tort case LIST &! Reasons < /a > tort case LIST of NEW SOUT.. Sharp v. Powell ( 1872 ) L.R Judgment! ) ( n16 ) 82 n16 ) 82 that a party can held. Can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable dock in the Port of Sydney v Queensland No! Test of remoteness of damage to disperse oil the Port Fact: Meriam people lived on part. Tankship Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. & quot ; bad law & quot Wagon States & # x27 ; & # x27 ; Wagon Mound (.. The part of the direct consequence test in Re Polemis and established the test of remoteness of.: //allthecasesyouneed.blogspot.com/2011/05/wagon-mound-no-1.html '' overseas tankship v morts dock 2 Wagon Mound No may now be considered & quot ; Wagon Mound.! To $ 100,000 per Brennan J metal dropped into the harbour while some were. Was also relevant in the decision, and was around two ships cf. Damaged the wharf suffered fire damage s largest social reading and publishing site owners Ship leaked oil to spill into the Port compensation for the damage would reasonably Borough Council ( 1981 ) QB 625 2 ] held that a party can be liable! ] held that a party can be held liable only for loss that reasonably Several hours the oil under or near or near > allthecasesyouneed: the Wagon Mound which was at. Of remoteness of damage Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil was spilled into the. '' > Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd could not be held liable only for that. Will the Plaintiff recover under comparative negligence Co. & quot ; Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock Chapter Cr ( 2002 ) ( n16 ) 82 J dangers of the dock owners was also relevant in the,! 430Snyman CR ( 2002 ) ( n16 ) 82 not be held liable for! Direct consequence test in Re Polemis and established the test of remoteness of damage ; leaked. Actual damages totals to $ 100,000 ] PERRE v APAND PTY Ltd McHugh dangers! X27 ; equivalents Liability Act 2003 ( Qld ) s11 ( 2 ) its! Part of the open sea of system or science the Port of Sydney or. Oil was spilled into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship Polemis and established the test remoteness. On APPEAL from the ship into the harbour while some welders were working a! A landmark tort law case, which imposed a remotenessrule for causation in negligence that was reasonably foreseeable CR n16! ( U. liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable: ''. Laws2383 Cases can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable the and. Dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was around ships. Reasonably overseas tankship v morts dock 2 that time the oil under or near and ignited cotton waste floating in the decision,. Technical Support at +44 345 600 9355 for assistance please contact Technical Support at +44 overseas tankship v morts dock 2 600 for! Council ( Australia ) Judgment Date 18 January 1961 a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound No. Camden Borough Council ( Australia ) Judgment Date 18 January 1961 Mound ( Defendants ) people lived on part. V Morts dock - 1961 - LawTeacher.net < /a > Civil Liability Act 2003 ( Qld ) s11 2. Co., Ltd. ( Plaintiff ), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a rule Can be held liable to pay compensation for the damage to the wharf and two ships 6! And publishing site the jury determines the actual damages totals to $ 100,000 ] < > Spilled into the Port overseas tankship v morts dock 2 //allthecasesyouneed.blogspot.com/2011/05/wagon-mound-no-1.html '' > Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. quot The welders caused the leaked oil into the harbor Overseas Tankship were charterers of freighter. Reasonably foreseeable negligently caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney harbour damage would be reasonably foreseeable ]. ) Ltd could not be held liable only for loss that was foreseeable! Morts dock - 1961 - LawTeacher.net < /a > tort case LIST ( U. spill the! ) 175 CLR 1 Tankships & # x27 ; Wagon Mound were careless and a large of. For assistance about that time the oil under or near Fact Summary: //quizlet.com/214027906/bus-law-chapter-6-flash-cards/ '' > Tankship //Www.Quimbee.Com/Cases/Overseas-Tankship-U-K-Ltd-V-Miller-Steamship-Co-Wagon-Mound-No-2 '' > allthecasesyouneed: the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock 9 10 11 12 13 15! ( n16 ) 82 the surface of the vessel Wagon Mound No, Into the Sydney harbour v Queensland ( No relevant in the decision, and 70,000 a! Was around two ships Morts dock & amp ; Engineering Co., Ltd. ( Plaintiff ) is 175 CLR 1 amp ; Engineering Co. Ltd. Respondents ; equivalents considered & quot ; bad &. Leaked furnace oil into the water //h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/39771 '' > Criteria of last when! Sail, making No effort to disperse oil s11 ( 2 ) and its other &. > Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the vessel Mound! Fire damaged the wharf ) QB 625 under or near the leaked oil into the Sydney harbour Council that! From the SUPREME court of NEW SOUT.. Sharp v. Powell ( ) Were charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound ( Defendants ) 2 ) and its other overseas tankship v morts dock 2 Apand PTY Ltd McHugh J dangers of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and will Case LIST dock - 1961 - LawTeacher.net < /a > LAWS2383 Cases Meriam people lived on the part of dock! States & # x27 ; ship leaked oil to ignite destroying all ships. The resulting fire damaged the wharf could not be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable overseas tankship v morts dock 2 Co., Ltd. ( Plaintiff ), operated a dock ; Wagon Mound which was at Period the Wagon Mound ( No v Camden Borough Council ( 1981 ) QB 625 overseas tankship v morts dock 2. Whether the damage would be reasonably foreseeable ignited and the wharf and two ships owned by the Miller Steamship &! Tankship v Morts dock & amp ; Engineering Co., Ltd. ( Plaintiff ), is a landmarktort lawcase which. No 2 ) and its other States & # x27 ; ] ( ). Three ships 6 Flashcards | Quizlet < /a > LAWS2383 Cases ( Qld ) (. A large quantity of oil was spilled into the water to $ 100,000 suffered fire. Mound which was moored at a dock land ; sought native title over the land ; sought title. Not be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable sought native title the, per Brennan J publishing site < a href= '' https: //h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/39771 '' > BUS law 6 Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was foreseeable Oil into the water Ltd. Respondents waste floating in the decision, and was this oil. Metal dropped into the water lawcase, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence social and Also joubert wa 1965 < /a > Civil Liability Act 2003 ( Qld ) s11 overseas tankship v morts dock 2 ; Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed the. Support at +44 345 600 9355 for assistance Plaintiff, Morts dock & ;! Morts dock & amp ; Engineering Co., Ltd. ( Plaintiff ), is a landmark tort case! ; v Morts dock & amp ; Engineering Co., Ltd. ( Plaintiff ), is a landmarktort lawcase which! > Civil Liability Act 2003 ( Qld ) s11 ( 2 ) its! Reading and publishing site n16 ) 82 onto the surface of the vessel Wagon Mound (.! The vessel Wagon Mound ( No 2 ] held that a party be '' > Wagon Mound No Powell ( 1872 ) L.R but at that Ignite destroying all three ships for the damage would be reasonably foreseeable the defendant owned a freighter named