[1961] UKPC 1
Facts:
→ Appellant Wagon Mound (WM) carelessly permitted oil to spill into Sydney Harbour while taking on fuel
→ Oil was carried by wind and tide under respondent Morts Dock and Engineering’s (MDE) wharf
→ MDE’s employees were using welding equipment
→ Some molten metal fell and ignited a rag that was floating on some debris
→ Burning debris ignited oil and set wharf ablaze
→ Wharf and equipment were severely damaged
At trial:
→ Defendant did not know and could not reasonable be expected to know that it was being capable of being set afire when spread on water
→ However, oil onto dock did interfere with use of the dock (slipway)
Issue(s):
Should a causation analysis adopt the test for directness or the test of reasonable foreseeability?
Ratio:
Reasonable foreseeability, rather than directness, is the primary test for liability in negligence.
Analysis:
Consider, but update Re Polemis
→ It is no longer regarded as good law
→ Must use reasonable person test: What is reasonably foreseeable -- what is natural and probable
→ Directness is irrelevant: The essential factor in determining liability is whether the damage is something a reasonable person should have foreseen
Holding:
Appeal allowed in favour of WM
→ Action relating to damage caused by negligence dismissed
→ Action related to damage caused by nuisance remitted to the full court
Comments:
Re Polemis (1921):
→ Defendants carelessly dropped a plank into the hold of a ship; hold contained benzene; ship was destroyed by ensuing explosion
→ Court held that injury was unforeseeable but found defendants liable because of a direct connection between the breach and loss
No comments:
Post a Comment