122
Overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No. 2"
Overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No.
2"
Citation.
Privy Council 1966.
Brief Fact Summary.
The defendants negligently caused oil to spill into the Port of
Sydney. This spill did minimal damage to the plaintiff's ships. The oil subsequently
caused a fire when molten metal dropped into the water and ignited cotton waste floating
in the port. The fire destroyed the ships.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
If a party did nothing to prevent the injury, he is liable for the
foreseeable consequences of his actions, even if the consequences are remote.
Facts.
The 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
defendant's negligence, furnace oil was discharged into the bay causing minor injury to
the plaintiff's ships. However, the oil was then ignited when molten metal dropped from
the wharf and came into contact with cotton waste floating on the water's surface. The
fire that resulted seriously damaged the wharf and two of the plaintiff's ships.
Issue.
Whether the fire, which was found to be foreseeable to the reasonable man, was
reasonably foreseeable to the extent liability attaches.
Held.
If a reasonable man can foresee and prevent the risk, then he is liable for the
foreseeable damages.
Discussion.
Based on the trial court's findings, it is true that the Wagon Mound's
operators would have foreseen that oil spilling into the harbor had a possibility of causing
a fire, but would have only a very low probability. A fire could only result under
exceptional circumstances. However, because the risk of fire was foreseeable, the
defendants bore a duty to prevent the risk, even if the risk was a remote possibility.
123
Palsgraph v. Long Island R.R. Co.
Palsgraph v. Long Island R.R. Co.
Citation.
162 N.E. 99 (1928)/.
Brief Fact Summary.
A railway guard employed by the Defendant, the Long Island
R.R. Co. (Defendant), caused a man to drop a package of fireworks upon the tracks. The
fireworks caused an explosion and the force of the explosion caused a scale at the other
end of the station to fall on the Plaintiff, Ms. Palsgraph (Plaintiff) and injure her.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
A negligent party only owes a duty to the party who was
directly wronged by them.
Facts.
While waiting on the platform of the Defendant's train station for her train to
arrive, the Plaintiff was struck and injured when the station's large scales fell on her. The
scales fell when a large explosion occurred. The explosion was the result of a package of
fireworks hitting the rails. The man carrying the package dropped the fireworks when he
was assisted onto a moving train by one of the train guards.
