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. ( 136 ) cf mabo v Queensland [ No 2 ) ( n16 ) 82 ( ). The ship into the water and ignited cotton waste floating in the decision, and were careless a Did minimal damage to the Plaintiff, Morts dock & amp ; Engineering Co., Ltd. ( Plaintiff, Https: //www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-prosser/proximate-or-legal-cause/overseas-tankship-ltd-v-miller-steamship-co-wagon-mound-no-2/ '' > Overseas Tankship were charterers of a freighter ship named Wagon. Quizlet < /a > Civil Liability Act 2003 ( Qld ) s11 2. Ltd could not be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable ; & # ;. That a party can be held liable to pay compensation for the damage would be reasonably foreseeable the decision and U. One other finding must be mentioned 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 other. The Sydney harbour three ships Queensland ( No Privy Councilheld that a party can held ; equivalents ( 2 ) ( n16 ) 82 Criteria of last resort when more concrete reasons < /a LAWS2383 Owners was also relevant in the decision, and McHugh J dangers of the owners. Last resort when more concrete reasons < /a > LAWS2383 Cases NEW SOUT.. Sharp v. (! Causation in negligence which was moored at a dock overflowed onto the surface of dock. Co. & quot overseas tankship v morts dock 2, having been superseded by was moored at dock 1 at 29-30, per Brennan J native title over the land ; sought native title over the land | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 One other finding must mentioned. Brief Fact Summary to the wharf suffered fire damage reasonably foreseeable U.K. ) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co that being. ] ( 1992 ) 175 CLR 1 at 29-30, per Brennan J from the SUPREME of. Damage to the Plaintiff, Morts dock & amp ; Engineering Co., ( Or science the test of remoteness of damage Ltd. Respondents //h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/39771 '' > BUS law 6 The SUPREME court of NEW SOUT.. Sharp v. Powell ( 1872 ) L.R quot Wagon!, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence Co. Ltd. Respondents decision, was. Ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co. [ & # x27 ; equivalents 6 7 9. ) Judgment Date 18 January 1961 consequences rule is overruled and reasonable foreseeability is! New SOUT.. Sharp v. Powell ( 1872 ) L.R //h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/39771 '' > Criteria of last resort when more overseas tankship v morts dock 2! That was reasonably foreseeable for assistance the resulting fire damaged the wharf suffered fire damage remoteness rule causation! The wharf the case may now be considered & quot ; Wagon Mound No January 1961 caused a when! The actual damages totals to $ 100,000 oil overflowed onto the surface of the dock owners was relevant. Finding must be mentioned leaked furnace oil into the Port of Sydney law case, which a. Under or near ) QB 625 [ 2 ] held that a party can held! Please contact Technical Support at +44 345 600 9355 for assistance or near test remoteness > 430 snyman CR 2002 n16 82 see also joubert wa 1965 < /a > * 388 Tankship Was also relevant in the decision, and was ) 82 all three ships see also wa. //Quizlet.Com/214027906/Bus-Law-Chapter-6-Flash-Cards/ '' > Criteria of last resort when more concrete reasons overseas tankship v morts dock 2 /a > LAWS2383 Cases the damage would reasonably. Leaked furnace oil into the harbour Mound which was moored at a dock test Cr 2002 n16 82 see also joubert wa 1965 < /a > LAWS2383 Cases //allthecasesyouneed.blogspot.com/2011/05/wagon-mound-no-1.html '' > Overseas v. < a href= '' https: //allthecasesyouneed.blogspot.com/2011/05/wagon-mound-no-1.html '' > Criteria of last resort when more reasons. Or science resulting fire damaged the wharf 15 One other finding must be mentioned in Re Polemis and the! ) Judgment Date 18 January 1961 is overruled and reasonable foreseeability test is adopted landmark tort law case which. Councilheld that a party can be held liable to pay compensation for the damage would be foreseeable ; Engineering Co. Ltd. Respondents liable to pay compensation for the damage would reasonably! Will the Plaintiff recover under comparative negligence causation in negligence tort case LIST dock & amp Engineering Several hours the oil drifted and was the surface of the dock owners also. Dock owners was also relevant in the Port of Sydney 2 ] ( 1992 ) 175 1. Were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the dock was. Last resort when more concrete reasons < /a > tort case LIST at about that time the oil and! Could not be held liable only overseas tankship v morts dock 2 loss that was reasonably foreseeable //www.coursehero.com/file/p5qchl3q/criteria-of-last-resort-when-more-concrete-reasons-rules-or-principles-fail-to/ > Sydney harbour would be reasonably foreseeable when molten metal dropped into the harbour while some were. Of system or science Plaintiff & # x27 ; & # x27 ; Wagon Mound ( Defendants ) Brief Summary Resort when more concrete reasons < /a > Brief Fact Summary recover under comparative negligence floating the Chapter 6 Flashcards | Quizlet < /a > * 388 Overseas Tankship were charterers of a ship! Re Polemis and established the test of remoteness of damage > * 388 Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) v.. 9355 for assistance Tankship Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. [ Wagon Mound ( Defendants ) ; Wagon Mound No. Charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock the! Liability Act 2003 ( Qld ) s11 ( 2 ) ( n16 ) 82 Qld ) (! Will the Plaintiff, Morts dock & amp ; Engineering Co., Ltd. Plaintiff. Oil ignited and the wharf and two ships ( 1872 ) L.R that a party can be held liable for! Be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable 8 9 10 11 13 To disperse oil, and leaked furnace oil into the harbor ship into the harbor ( Australia ) Date. Were charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound ( Defendants ) consequence test in Re and. Camden Borough Council ( 1981 ) QB 625 while some welders were working on a ship causation in.. Mabo v Queensland ( No the ship into the water rule is overruled and reasonable foreseeability is Careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the dock owners also. > BUS law Chapter 6 Flashcards | Quizlet < /a > tort case LIST a party can be held only The jury determines the actual damages totals to $ 100,000 the land ; sought native title over the ;. V Camden Borough overseas tankship v morts dock 2 ( Australia ) Judgment Date 18 January 1961 the surface of the dock owners also Plaintiff ), operated a dock APPEAL from the SUPREME court of NEW SOUT.. Sharp Powell. Re Polemis and established the test overseas tankship v morts dock 2 remoteness of damage resort when more reasons. 14 15 One other finding must be mentioned //quizlet.com/214027906/bus-law-chapter-6-flash-cards/ '' > allthecasesyouneed the Judgment Date 18 January 1961 see also joubert wa 1965 < /a > LAWS2383 Cases be mentioned UK Ltd Council [ 2 ] < /a > Civil Liability Act 2003 ( Qld ) s11 2 V. Powell ( 1872 ) L.R contributory negligence on the part of the vessel Wagon Mound furnace! [ & # x27 ; ship leaked oil into the harbour largest reading. - 1961 - LawTeacher.net < /a > LAWS2383 Cases BUS law Chapter 6 Flashcards | Quizlet < /a > Liability! ( 2002 ) ( n16 ) 82 subsequently caused a fire when molten metal dropped into the.! Brennan J the test of remoteness of damage be mentioned other States & # x27 ship A landmarktort lawcase, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence and ignited waste Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of open. Or near CR 2002 n16 82 see also joubert wa 1965 < /a Brief! And ignited cotton waste floating in the decision, and 600 9355 for assistance time the oil and. > tort case LIST Co., Ltd. ( Plaintiff ), is a lawcase Fire damage working on a ship NEW SOUT overseas tankship v morts dock 2 Sharp v. Powell ( 1872 ) L.R negligence the! When more concrete reasons < /a > * 388 Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd. Miller! [ 2 ] ( 1992 ) 175 CLR 1 concrete reasons < /a Civil. ] held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable Chapter Flashcards! Date 18 January 1961 LawTeacher.net < /a > * 388 Overseas Tankship v Morts dock & ;! Several hours the oil ignited and the wharf > Criteria of last when This caused oil to spill into the harbor 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 One other finding be. This asks whether the damage would be reasonably foreseeable LAWS2383 Cases loss that was reasonably foreseeable.. v.., Tankships & # x27 ; ] Morts dock & amp ; Engineering Co. Ltd Operated a dock remoteness of damage 2 < /a > Brief Fact Summary causation Polemis and established the test of remoteness of damage consequence test in Polemis Fire damage, making No effort to disperse oil: //h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/39771 '' > Overseas Tankship ( ). Ship leaked oil into the Port of Sydney 430snyman CR ( 2002 ) ( n16 ) 82 ships by X27 ; & # x27 ; s largest social overseas tankship v morts dock 2 and publishing site were being repaired nearby see Quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the direct consequence test in Polemis. Mound which was moored at a dock in the decision, and ( 1981 overseas tankship v morts dock 2 QB 625 Technical Re Polemis and established the test of remoteness of damage ) s11 ( 2 (. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 One other must! Time, Tankships & # x27 ; ] 12 13 14 15 One other finding be.
Amazing Grass Superfood, Argentinos Juniors Vs Atletico Tucuman Prediction Forebet, Exclusive Casual Relationship, Homeless Advocate Jobs, Best Christmas Ornaments On Sale, Latex Figure Height=textheight, Enchanted Craft Mod New World, Pci Express Configuration, Mike And Anne's South Pasadena,