Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#law #negligence #remoteness #tort
Question
In this case the defendants negligently caused oil to spill into Sydney Harbour. The oil spread a distance of 600 feet into the vicinity of a ship called The Corrimal which was berthed at the plaintiff’s wharf. Two days later welding operations on The Corrimal caused a spark to come into contact with harbour rubbish floating on the oil. The resulting fire caused extensive damage to the plaintiff’s premises. While this was a direct result of the defendant’s negligence, the court held that it was not foreseeable damage. Damage by pollution was foreseeable, but damage by fire was not. The defendants were held not to be liable.
Answer
Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] AC 388

Tags
#law #negligence #remoteness #tort
Question
In this case the defendants negligently caused oil to spill into Sydney Harbour. The oil spread a distance of 600 feet into the vicinity of a ship called The Corrimal which was berthed at the plaintiff’s wharf. Two days later welding operations on The Corrimal caused a spark to come into contact with harbour rubbish floating on the oil. The resulting fire caused extensive damage to the plaintiff’s premises. While this was a direct result of the defendant’s negligence, the court held that it was not foreseeable damage. Damage by pollution was foreseeable, but damage by fire was not. The defendants were held not to be liable.
Answer
?

Tags
#law #negligence #remoteness #tort
Question
In this case the defendants negligently caused oil to spill into Sydney Harbour. The oil spread a distance of 600 feet into the vicinity of a ship called The Corrimal which was berthed at the plaintiff’s wharf. Two days later welding operations on The Corrimal caused a spark to come into contact with harbour rubbish floating on the oil. The resulting fire caused extensive damage to the plaintiff’s premises. While this was a direct result of the defendant’s negligence, the court held that it was not foreseeable damage. Damage by pollution was foreseeable, but damage by fire was not. The defendants were held not to be liable.
Answer
Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] AC 388
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] AC 388. In this case the defendants negligently caused oil to spill into Sydney Harbour. The oil spread a distance of 600 feet into the vicinity of a ship called The Corrimal which was berth

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.