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 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 [...]. The defendants were held not to be liable.
Answer
it was not foreseeable damage. Damage by pollution was foreseeable, but damage by fire was not
Tags
#law #negligence #remoteness #tort
Question
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 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 [...]. The defendants were held not to be liable.
Answer
?
Tags
#law #negligence #remoteness #tort
Question
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 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 [...]. The defendants were held not to be liable.
Answer
it was not foreseeable damage. Damage by pollution was foreseeable, but damage by fire was not
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it orrimal 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 <span>it was not foreseeable damage. Damage by pollution was foreseeable, but damage by fire was not. The defendants were held not to be liable.<span><body><html>
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised 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.