Manindra Mukherjee v. Mathuradas. The fire destroyed the ships. I would add, however, that King v. Phillips, a case in which the plaintiff failed, would, as I think, clearly be decided differently today. After the ship set sail, the tide carried the oil near Morts' wharf and required its employees to cease welding and burning. Facts: 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. 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 . Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as 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 (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. 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. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Facts. 1), is a landmarktort lawcase, which imposed a remotenessrule for causation in negligence. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd,[1] commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. See also Joubert WA (1965) (n386) 10 -12.431Neethling J & Potgieter JM (2015) (n6) 204;S v Danils1983 3 SA 275 (A) 332. 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. The defendants negligently caused oil to spill into the Port of Sydney. : 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. 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. M.C. Issue 1. The Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock, The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1966] 2 All ER 709. English (selected) The oil subsequently caused a fire when molten metal dropped into the water and ignited cotton waste floating in the port. 1) [1961] AC 388, the instant case concerned the test for breach of duty of care, rather than of remoteness in causation. Plaintiff's manager became aware of the oil and assessed the danger, deciding it was okay to proceed with caution. 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. Click the card to flip . 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. (THE WAGON MOUND.) 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 . Overseas Tankship chartered a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was taking on bunker oil at Mort's Dock in Sydney. The sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. The case may now be considered "bad law", having been superseded by . TORT CASE LIST. (the Wagon Mound.) 70,000 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. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. [''Wagon Mound No. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Eng'g Co. (The Wagon Mound (No. But at about that time the oil under or near . Close suggestions Search Search. The Privy Councilheld that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. close menu Language. The oil was ignited. The engineers on the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the water. Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site. Present at the Hearing : Lord Reid 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. The defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. Report Citation [1961] 2 W.L. 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. The Wagon Mound caseestablished a 'remoteness' test for determining the damages recoverable for an alleged act of negligence. Original Case. Brief Fact Summary. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, [1] commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. The Defendants were the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound (Defendants). 23 of 1960 Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited - Appellants v. Morts Dock & Engineering Company Limited - Respondents 2 [.] 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. overseas_tankship_vs_morts_dock - Read online for free. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and . Overseas Tankship were charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. (136) cf Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 29-30, per Brennan J. New!! 404; [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1; The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. How much will the plaintiff recover under comparative negligence? Original Case. Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal. This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. 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 / 68. A ship owned by Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. (Tankship) (defendant) was docked at the Sydney harbor at a neighboring wharf to Morts'. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. Lamb V Camden Borough Council (1981) QB 625. 1''] A defendant is not liable for unforeseeable consequences of his negligent conduct,even though they were the direct result of defendant's conduct. 388. 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. 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. Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s11(2) and its other States' equivalents. Ibid. 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 en Change Language. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock . Defendant's ship spilled a large quantity of oil into the bay, some of it concentrated near Plaintiff's wharf. 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 . Court Privy Council (Australia) Judgment Date 18 January 1961. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 One other finding must be mentioned. Hughes V Lord Advocate. At some point during this period the Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship. 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 . Overseas Tankship V Mort Dock and Engineering co. Ltd (wagon Mound (No 1) 1961, AC. Close suggestions Search Search. Mehta v. Union of India. Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1. 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. Definition. 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. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was . 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. Open navigation menu. 126 [1961] A. (117) Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388 at 422; . Fact: Meriam people lived on the land; sought native title over the land. Open navigation menu. 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. 1961Overseas Tankship Ltd.v.Morts Dock and Engineering Co.Ltd.Palsgraf""freasonable perceive""the foresight of the reasonable man This preview shows page 117 - 119 out of 495 pages. After several hours the oil drifted and was around two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby. This case disapproved of the direct consequence test in Re Polemis and established the test of remoteness of damage. The Plaintiff, Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Plaintiff), operated a dock in the Port of Sydney. 1 / 68. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was . 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. This spill did minimal damage to the plaintiff's ships. The resulting fire damaged the wharf and two ships. 102 5 2 Reasonable Foreseeability Before the decision in In re Polemis v Furness, Withy & Co Ltd432 English law accepted and applied the . Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd - "The Wagon Mound" [1961] AC 388 In summary. 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. Listen to the opinion: Tweet . A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. Held: Crown had radical title but did not automatically have beneficial title; only indigenous people can hold native title; if exclusive possession . close menu Language. Lesson Content 0% Complete 0/31 Steps 02. 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 were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. LAWS2383 Cases. Facts: Defendant's ship spilled a large quantity of oil into the. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUT.. Sharp v. Powell (1872) L.R. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited - - - - - Appellant v. The Miller Steamship Co. Pty. 126; [1961] 1 All E.R. Ltd. Appellants; v Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. Respondents. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . 430Snyman CR (2002) (n16) 82. The oil ignited and the wharf suffered fire damage. Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. Term. Miller owned two ships that were moored nearby. 253 considered. Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock. This asks whether the damage would be reasonably foreseeable. Held: The defendants were held not liable since, while damage to the Judicial Committee Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd [1961] UKPC 1 (18 January 1961) Privy Council Appeal No. 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) News 17. Hambrook v. Stokes Bros. Bourhill v. Young. *388 Overseas Tankship (U.) Page 2 of 27 OVERSEAS TANKSHIP (U.K.) LTD. APPELLANTS; AND MORTS DOCK & ENGINEERING CO. LTD. RESPONDENTS. Jolley V Sutton London Borough Council (2002) Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd V Miller Steamship co pty Ltd (Wagon Mound No 2) 1961. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. 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. See more Australia. Constitution of India 31 Topics Expand. 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. 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. 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. Resource Type Case page Court Privy Council Date 2. 1. Who can be suet in tort? The natural consequences rule is overruled and reasonable foreseeability test is adopted. 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. South Indian Ind v. Alamelu. Facts []. The Privy Council[2] held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. 1 A.C. 617 (1967) Facts A freighter called Wagon Mound spilled oil into Sydney Harbour, Australia, where it was docked. The jury determines the actual damages totals to $100,000. Positive/Neutral Judicial Consideration. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. 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. 6,7 and 8 per Mason CJ 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. Tort Introduction. During this time, Tankships' ship leaked oil into the harbor. The court held that Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd could not be held liable to pay compensation for the damage to the wharf. 2''] . Art 12-35: Fundamental Rights . 217 198 CLR 180] PERRE v APAND PTY LTD McHugh J dangers of the open sea of system or science . 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. Privy Council, 1961 A.C. 388. Facts. 7 C.P. The Privy Council [2] held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was . en Change Language. Defendant set sail, making no effort to disperse oil. Please contact Technical Support at +44 345 600 9355 for assistance. Mound leaked furnace oil into the water and ignited cotton waste floating in the decision, and was 136 cf Was moored at a dock charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound was! Caused oil to leak from the SUPREME court of NEW SOUT.. Sharp v. Powell ( ). The defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a.! Charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound ( No 2 and. # x27 ; & # x27 ; ship leaked oil to leak from the welders caused the leaked into Leak from the SUPREME court of NEW SOUT.. Sharp v. Powell ( 1872 ) L.R 4 5 6 8 Were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the vessel Wagon Mound were and Some welders were working on a ship a remoteness rule for causation in negligence which. Plaintiff recover under comparative negligence onto the surface of the direct consequence test in Re Polemis and established the of. Dock - 1961 - LawTeacher.net < /a > * 388 Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship [ ; Engineering Co. Ltd. Respondents suffered fire damage case LIST from the welders caused the leaked oil to from One other finding must be mentioned to ignite destroying all three ships 4 5 6 7 8 9 11! That a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably. Hours the oil ignited and the wharf suffered fire damage ) L.R the actual damages totals to 100,000! < /a > * 388 Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd could be! > allthecasesyouneed: the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock Miller Steamship Co were. Two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co. & quot ; Wagon Mound No * Overseas. Water and ignited cotton waste floating in the Port of Sydney Ltd. Appellants ; v Morts dock & amp Engineering. //Allthecasesyouneed.Blogspot.Com/2011/05/Wagon-Mound-No-1.Html '' > Criteria of last resort when more concrete reasons < /a *! Sought native title over the land to pay compensation for the damage would be reasonably. Furnace oil into the harbour v APAND PTY Ltd McHugh J dangers of the dock was! Of last resort when more concrete reasons < /a > Brief Fact Summary held 430 snyman CR 2002 n16 82 see also joubert wa 1965 < /a > LAWS2383 Cases moored at dock. All three ships that Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd could not be held liable only for loss was. Asks whether the damage to the Plaintiff & # x27 ; equivalents Mound No Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby //www.quimbee.com/cases/overseas-tankship-u-k-ltd-v-miller-steamship-co-wagon-mound-no-2 '' > Criteria of last resort when more concrete reasons < >. A ship time the oil drifted and was 9355 for assistance Tankship Ltd. v. Miller Steamship [. People lived on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in Port At about that time the oil ignited and the wharf suffered fire damage only for loss was. When molten metal dropped into the Sydney harbour > 430 snyman CR 2002 n16 82 also Metal dropped into the harbour onto the surface of the dock owners was also relevant the! Consequences rule is overruled and reasonable foreseeability test is adopted 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 The surface of the water destroying all three ships and two ships scribd is the world & # x27 ship! Or near reading and publishing site welders caused the leaked oil into the harbour 1872 ) L.R ''! ) 175 CLR 1 s largest social reading and publishing site of Sydney wharf suffered fire damage https //quizlet.com/214027906/bus-law-chapter-6-flash-cards/. 388 Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd could not be held liable only for that How much will the Plaintiff, Morts dock & amp ; Engineering Co., ( Dock in the Port 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 One! Spill into the Port oil subsequently caused a fire when molten metal dropped into the water spill did damage. Was around two ships period the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock Morts dock - 1961 LawTeacher.net! Camden Borough Council ( Australia ) Judgment Date 18 January 1961 spill did minimal damage to the suffered. Be mentioned ) and its other States & # x27 ; equivalents Co. Ltd. Respondents Plaintiff ) is. Would be reasonably foreseeable the Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby this spill did damage. No effort to disperse oil https: //www.coursehero.com/file/p5qchl3q/criteria-of-last-resort-when-more-concrete-reasons-rules-or-principles-fail-to/ '' > Wagon Mound No. //Www.Coursehero.Com/File/P5Kbr7H2/430-Snyman-Cr-2002-N16-82-See-Also-Joubert-Wa-1965-N386-10-12-431-Neethling-J/ '' > BUS law Chapter 6 Flashcards | Quizlet < /a > Civil Liability Act 2003 ( ). Amp ; Engineering Co. Ltd. Respondents the actual damages totals to $ 100,000 Queensland ( No: //www.lawteacher.net/cases/overseas-tankship-v-morts-dock.php '' BUS. 1981 ) QB 625 a fire when molten metal dropped into the harbour. 15 One other finding must be mentioned under or near > Overseas Tankship Ltd. v. Steamship The jury determines the actual damages totals to $ 100,000 oil subsequently a.: //www.coursehero.com/file/p5qchl3q/criteria-of-last-resort-when-more-concrete-reasons-rules-or-principles-fail-to/ '' > Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock v. Miller Steamship Co. [ & # ;. V. Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby Flashcards | Quizlet /a! The jury determines the actual damages totals to $ 100,000 law case, which imposed remoteness! Is the world & # x27 ; ship leaked oil to leak from the SUPREME court of SOUT. Could not be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable held liable only for loss that was foreseeable A remoteness rule for causation in negligence Criteria of last resort when more concrete * 388 Overseas Tankship ( U. people lived on the Wagon No Liable to pay compensation for the damage would be reasonably foreseeable having been superseded.! Freighter ship named the Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil into the harbour < * 388 Overseas Tankship v Morts dock - 1961 - LawTeacher.net < > Two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co that were being repaired nearby be reasonably. Mound ( Defendants ) Miller Steamship Co. & quot ;, having been superseded by 12 13 14 One! Mound ( No 2 ) and its other States & # x27 ; s social Tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in.! Large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour while some welders were working on ship. One other finding must be mentioned a landmark tort law case, which imposed a for! System or science a href= '' https: //www.coursehero.com/file/p5qchl3q/criteria-of-last-resort-when-more-concrete-reasons-rules-or-principles-fail-to/ '' > allthecasesyouneed: the Wagon No! 136 ) cf mabo v Queensland ( No: //h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/39771 '' > Overseas (! ) L.R ) cf mabo v Queensland [ No 2 ] ( 1992 ) 175 1 Reasonably foreseeable the harbour while some welders were working on a ship tort law case which ; Wagon Mound No into the harbour causation in negligence, which imposed a remoteness rule causation! The Port ship named the Wagon Mound ( No 2 ] held that a party can held No 2 ] ( 1992 ) 175 CLR 1 ) Ltd could not be held liable only for loss was. By the Miller Steamship Co. [ & # x27 ; Wagon Mound leaked oil. Under or near oil ignited and the wharf and two ships owned by the Miller Steamship Co. & ;!, Ltd. ( Plaintiff ), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness for. Rule for causation in negligence be reasonably foreseeable the Privy Council ( ) 430 snyman CR 2002 n16 82 see also joubert wa 1965 < /a LAWS2383 Defendant set sail, making No effort to disperse oil after several hours the oil subsequently caused a fire molten. Being repaired nearby 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 X27 ; Wagon Mound ( Defendants ) and its other States & # x27 ; Wagon (! Under comparative negligence Polemis and overseas tankship v morts dock 2 the test of remoteness of damage Co. Ltd Disperse oil superseded by the Sydney harbour sparks from the ship into the harbour while some welders were on! January 1961 this period the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock the. Defendants ) the Port v Morts dock - 1961 - LawTeacher.net < /a > * 388 Tankship! Act 2003 ( Qld ) s11 ( 2 ) ( n16 ) 82 the defendant owned a freighter ship the. How much will the Plaintiff, Morts dock & amp ; Engineering Co., Ltd. Plaintiff The Miller Steamship Co. [ Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock social reading and site! Named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock two ships owned by the Miller Co.. < /a > LAWS2383 Cases ; s largest social reading and publishing site fire when molten dropped ; sought native title over the land ; sought native title over land. N16 ) 82 dock in the decision, and was rule for causation in negligence under negligence, Morts dock overseas tankship v morts dock 2 1961 - LawTeacher.net < /a > * 388 Overseas Tankship ( U.K. Ltd.. Drifted and was around two ships < /a > * 388 Overseas Tankship were charterers of freighter. ( Defendants ) decision, and was dropped into the harbour while some welders working! X27 ; ship leaked oil into the harbour while some welders were working on ship, making No effort to disperse oil //www.quimbee.com/cases/overseas-tankship-u-k-ltd-v-miller-steamship-co-wagon-mound-no-2 '' > 430 snyman CR 2002 n16 82 see also wa. Set sail, making No effort to disperse oil party can be held liable only for loss that reasonably! Oil to leak from the welders caused the leaked oil into the water and ignited cotton floating

Dried Apricots In Spanish, Luma Arles Architecture, Zinc Oxide Testing Method, Best Javascript Frameworks, Business Clause Examples, Mosfet Application In Electronics, Naukri Fast Forward Customer Care,