The wagon mound case summary

Author: ixic

August undefined, 2024

WebThe" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. 11. ... In the year 1913 in the case of H.M.S. London (reported in [1914] Prob. 72 at p. 76), a case to which further reference will be made. Sir Samuel Evans, P., said "The doctrine of legal causation, in reference both to the creation of liability and to the measurement of damages ... WebThe defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding …

The Wagon Mound (2) [1967] 1 AC 617 - Oxbridge Notes

Web(The Wagon Mound) Brief Citation. Privy Council, 1961. [1961] A.C. 388. Brief Fact Summary. Defendant, the ship Wagon Mound was at a wharf and was taking on a large amount of … WebActual physical damage to P’s property = substantial and unreasonable o Unlike smoke// noise : indirect and intangible interference hard to determine 3 Capital Prosperous Ltd & Anor v Sheen Cho Kwong [1999] 12HKLRD 633 Concerns: Nature Case Summary: The defendant and his family used the electric water bump to take a shower from 9pm to … drum brake tool kit napa

The Wagon Mound (1) [1961] AC 388 - oxbridgenotes.co.uk

WebMay 11, 1995 · (The Wagon Mound (No. 1)) [1961] AC 388.This case, and the companion case of The Wagon Mound (No. 2) [1967] 1A.C. 617, established that "the essential factor in determining liability iswhether the damage is of such a kind as the reasonable man should haveforeseen": see p. 426. The defendants allowed a large quantity of bunker oilto spill … WebThe engineers on the Wagon Mound were careless and a large quantity of oil overflowed onto the surface of the water. After several hours the oil drifted and was around two ships … WebSep 1, 2024 · This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Docks & Engineering Co. Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) [1961] AC 388. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. Keywords negligence remoteness reasonable foreseeability Re Polemis causation drum brand logos

THE RULE OF REASONABLE FORSEEABILITY - The Jet Lawyer

Overseas Tankship v Miller Steamship (Wagon Mound …

WebSep 30, 2024 · CASE SUMMARY. Claimant: Mrs Bourhill - a heavily pregnant woman. Defendant: Mr Young - a motorcyclist. Facts: The claimant realised whilst disembarking a tram that there had been an accident nearby. She did not witness the initial incident but voluntarily approached the scene to witness the aftermath. As a result of viewing the … WebThe defendants are the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound, which was moored 600 feet from a wharf. The plaintiffs are owners of ships docked at the wharf. Due to the … drum brake tool kit autozoneWebOct 5, 2024 · CASE SUMMARY. Claimant: Wharf owner. Defendant: Ship owner. Facts: The defendants ship, the Wagon Mound was re-fuelling another ship and negligently spilt oil into the water, no effort was made to clear up the oil and it quickly spread to the claimant’s … ravine\u0027s 0p

"WebThe court held that Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd could not be held liable to pay compensation for the damage to the wharf. This case disapproved the direct … " - The wagon mound case summary

The wagon mound case summary

The Wagon Mound (2) [1967] 1 AC 617 - Oxbridge Notes

http://www.infrastructure-intelligence.com/article/jan-2015/no4-overseas-tankship-uk-ltd-v-morts-dock-and-engineering-co-ltd-%E2%80%93-%E2%80%9C-wagon-mound%E2%80%9D WebThe test in the Wagon Mound case28 was further explained in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd . v. The Miller Steamship Pty. Ltd . (usually called the Wagon Mound case No. 2). 29 The facts of this case were the same as in Wagon Mound (No. 1) except that in No. 1 the plaintiff was the owner of the wharf but in No. 2 the

Did you know?

WebOct 28, 1998 · In 1994, Philadelfio C. Armijo ("Armijo") was a sixteen-year-old special education student at Wagon Mound Public Schools ("WMPS"), in Wagon Mound, New Mexico. Armijo is represented in this action by Juanita D. Chavez and Atanacio Armijo (the "Plaintiffs"), his mother and father and next friends. Armijo was classified as learning … WebBusiness Law Case Summary - Semester 2 Cases: 1. The Wagon Mound (1961) Remoteness of Damage test - Studocu. Case summary table. semester cases: the wagon mound …

http://e-lawresources.co.uk/The-Wagon-Mound-No-2.php WebThe Wagon Mound (No 2) - Detailed case brief Torts: Negligence - The Wagon Mound Area of law - Studocu Detailed case brief Torts: …

WebMar 24, 2016 · This rule was laid down by the courts in the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd vs Mordock & Engineering Co Ltd (1961) All ER 404 PC, also popularly known as Wagon Mound’s Case. In this case, the defendants (appellants) discharged fuel … WebWagon 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 …

WebOverseas Tankship were charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. Miller owned two ships that were moored nearby. At some point during this period the Wagon Mound leaked furnace oil into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship.

WebFacts Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. As it fell, the wood knocked … drum brake vibrationWebOverseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for … drum brake vs disc brakeWebA loss is too remote unless its ‘type’ is reasonably foreseeable: The Wagon Mound (no 1) [1961] AC 388. This is assessed knowing the specifics of the breach. The relevant ‘type’ of harm is broadly defined. For example, personal injury, property damage, psychiatric harm and economic loss are ‘types’ of loss. ravine\\u0027s 0oWebBrief Fact Summary. Defendants carelessly discharged oil from their ship. Oil was carried by the wind and tide to Plaintiff’s wharf, which was destroyed by fire. Such damage could not have been foreseen. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Defendant is not liable for the damage solely because it directly resulted from his negligent act. ravine\\u0027s 0rWebThis case, Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock, more commonly known as "The Wagon Mound" occurred when an unlikely series of events followed an initial act of negligence, and … drum brake tools amazonWebThe introduction of large quantities of water within the molten liquid caused an eruption of steam shortly after, injuring Doughty. Doughty contended that whilst the incident itself was not foreseeable, an incident of its kind was, making the defendants liable, as per Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] 1 All ER 705 Issues ravine\u0027s 0qWebJan 19, 2024 · The Wagon Mound (2) [1967] 1 AC 617 Case summary last updated at 2024-01-19 11:43:35 UTC by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team . Judgement for the case The Wagon Mound (2) D carelessly let oil spill into the water, which spread to where X was repairing P’s ship. It was thought unlikely that the oil would catch fire and so X carried on … ravine\\u0027s 0s