Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967]
Share
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co [1967] 1 AC 617, commonly referred to as the Wagon Mound (No 2), is a landmark decision in English tort law, particularly in the areas of negligence and nuisance. This case revolves around the principle that, in nuisance, the injury must be reasonably foreseeable to be recoverable in damages, extending beyond occupier cases. This necessitates a balance between the difficulty and financial cost of preventive measures and the magnitude of the risk, applicable to both negligence and nuisance in occupier cases.
The defendants moored at Mort’s dock. Oil leaked from the vessel, and despite this spillage, the defendants' employees failed to address it. Subsequently, when the oil caught fire, the claimants' vessels under repair at Mort’s Dock suffered damage. Initially, the trial judge held that the damage was not reasonably foreseeable, deeming the risk of oil alighting on water as remote.
The Privy Council, however, held that the defendants were liable in nuisance to pay damages to the claimants. It was determined that a reasonable person in the position of the defendants' chief engineer should have been aware of the risk of the oil alighting, and the injury was, therefore, reasonably foreseeable.
Lord Reid emphasised the importance of foreseeability in nuisance, asserting that while generally, nuisance does not require fault or negligence, in certain cases, like Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan [1940], fault and foreseeability are prerequisites. Discrimination based on whether foreseeability is required in different nuisance cases was considered unjustifiable. Therefore, the injury suffered must be foreseeable for liability to be established.
Regarding the standard of care, the case draws on the precedent of Bolton v Stone [1951], emphasising that neglecting a risk, no matter how small, is justifiable only if there is a valid reason, such as considerable expense to eliminate the risk. In the current case, the Chief Engineer's knowledge of the oil spillage and the foreseeable risk of ignition on water rendered neglecting the risk unreasonable.
Furthermore, the case underscores that despite the requirement of reasonable foreseeability, nuisance remains a strict liability tort. Even if the defendant took reasonable care to prevent interference with the claimant's enjoyment of land, liability can still be established if the interference is deemed an "unreasonable user". The reasonable user test shifts the focus to whether the interference is one that the claimant should reasonably be expected to tolerate.
A comparison with Bolton v Stone highlights the minute risk in both cases but distinguishes them based on the legality and social utility of the defendant's actions. Unlike the cricket club in Bolton v Stone, which carried out a lawful and socially useful activity, the defendants in Wagon Mound (No 2) acted illegally by permitting the oil spillage. The different outcome from Wagon Mound (No 1) is attributed to the trial judge's finding that the defendants' employees should have known of the risk in the current case.
The defendants moored at Mort’s dock. Oil leaked from the vessel, and despite this spillage, the defendants' employees failed to address it. Subsequently, when the oil caught fire, the claimants' vessels under repair at Mort’s Dock suffered damage. Initially, the trial judge held that the damage was not reasonably foreseeable, deeming the risk of oil alighting on water as remote.
The Privy Council, however, held that the defendants were liable in nuisance to pay damages to the claimants. It was determined that a reasonable person in the position of the defendants' chief engineer should have been aware of the risk of the oil alighting, and the injury was, therefore, reasonably foreseeable.
Lord Reid emphasised the importance of foreseeability in nuisance, asserting that while generally, nuisance does not require fault or negligence, in certain cases, like Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan [1940], fault and foreseeability are prerequisites. Discrimination based on whether foreseeability is required in different nuisance cases was considered unjustifiable. Therefore, the injury suffered must be foreseeable for liability to be established.
Regarding the standard of care, the case draws on the precedent of Bolton v Stone [1951], emphasising that neglecting a risk, no matter how small, is justifiable only if there is a valid reason, such as considerable expense to eliminate the risk. In the current case, the Chief Engineer's knowledge of the oil spillage and the foreseeable risk of ignition on water rendered neglecting the risk unreasonable.
Furthermore, the case underscores that despite the requirement of reasonable foreseeability, nuisance remains a strict liability tort. Even if the defendant took reasonable care to prevent interference with the claimant's enjoyment of land, liability can still be established if the interference is deemed an "unreasonable user". The reasonable user test shifts the focus to whether the interference is one that the claimant should reasonably be expected to tolerate.
A comparison with Bolton v Stone highlights the minute risk in both cases but distinguishes them based on the legality and social utility of the defendant's actions. Unlike the cricket club in Bolton v Stone, which carried out a lawful and socially useful activity, the defendants in Wagon Mound (No 2) acted illegally by permitting the oil spillage. The different outcome from Wagon Mound (No 1) is attributed to the trial judge's finding that the defendants' employees should have known of the risk in the current case.
