Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. Wagon Mound No.

Facts

This is the same facts as in the previous Wagon Mound 1 case. In the first case, the action was taken upon negligence, and it was held that P was not entitled to recover on the ground that it was not foreseeable that such oil on the surface of the water could be set on fire. The issue of nuisance was raised but the Lords did not deal with it, and the issue was remitted to the Supreme Court. Here, respondents are suing in nuisance and negligence. The lower court found in their favor in nuisance but against them in negligence. Appellant appealed on the decision on nuisance and respondents appealed against the decision on negligence.

The findings at the lower court at the second trial included the following for negligence: 

(1-3) A reasonable person would regard the furnace oil as very difficult to ignite and personal experience of such incidents were extremely rare such that it would have been regarded to only happen in very rare instances

(4) The actors would have considered the chances of a fire under the circumstances as remote

(5) The court found that the occurrence of damages to P’s property as a result of spillage was not reasonably foreseeable

(6) The spillage of the oil was brought about by the careless conduct of D’s employees

(7) The spillage of the oil was a cause of damage to the property of P

(8) The plaintiffs’ claims in negligence must fail because of the holding in #5. 

Under nuisance, the trial court found: The liability based on public nuisance does not take into account foreseeability

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.