WebOverseas 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 … WebJan 15, 2024 · The Wagon Mound (1) [1961] AC 388 Case summary last updated at 15/01/2024 19:30 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Judgement for the case The Wagon Mound (1) For facts see week 1: a person can be held liable for indirect damage provided the intervening events were reasonably foreseeable. Viscount Simonds: it is too …
Remoteness of Damage - LawTeacher.net
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 … WebOct 26, 2024 · His Lordship took the view that “likely” must mean “more likely than not”. He asked to be addressed on the difference between the judgments of the Privy Council in The Wagon Mound No. 1 1961 AC; The Wagon Mound No.2 1967 AC and the then recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Bailey v Rolls Royce. He then required statistics of the ... black and white nike dunks kids
Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. “Wagon …
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 … 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 black and white nike dunk outfits