For Your Data Overseas Tankship V. Morts Dock (Wagon Mound) Illustration Brief
December 01, 2020
Edit
Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock (Wagon Mound) example summary
FACTS
-Morts (the plaintiff) was refitting a shipping at a wharf, as well as a shipping owned yesteryear Overseas (D) was taking on crude at a wharf that was near by.
-Some of the crude spilled, concentrated at P’s wharf.
-P stopped welding activities as well as assessed the danger. He talked to others as well as based on this as well as his ain agreement of furnace oil, he idea that it was security to resume operate amongst necessary precautions.
-Two days afterwards the crude lit on burn downwards as well as damaged P’s equipment as well as the wharf.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
-The lawsuit guess found that the P could non accept reasonable known that this crude would ignite when spread on water.
-The bear witness established that at that spot was a slice of cotton fiber supported yesteryear merely about debris that was laying underneath the wharf as well as this lit when molten metallic from the wharf came into contact amongst it.
-Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed yesteryear the Supreme Court of South Wales.
ISSUE
-Is a negligent accused responsible for all the consequences of his actions whether reasonably foreseeable or not?
HOLDING
No, a negligent accused is NOT responsible for ALL of the consequences of his actions (those that are non foreseeable).
RULES
-A accused is exclusively liable for the consequences of his actions that are reasonably foreseeable at the fourth dimension that he acts.
ANALYSIS
-Polemis is no longer practiced constabulary (it held that a accused was responsible for actions that were unforeseeable consequences of his negligence).
-It is a regulation of civil liability that a defendant’s liability should move express to those acts that are natural as well as in all likelihood consequences of his act
-What are natural as well as in all likelihood consequences of the act? Those acts that are foreseeable.
-To follow Polemis as well as brand the examination hinge on a decision of what causes are straight would move to invite the never ending occupation of causation.
-Therefore, the inquiry should be: was the impairment caused yesteryear something that a reasonable human being should accept foreseen?
---
Interested inward learning how to acquire the superlative grades inward your constabulary schoolhouse classes? Want to acquire how to written report smarter than your competition? Interested inward transferring to a high ranked school?
FACTS
-Morts (the plaintiff) was refitting a shipping at a wharf, as well as a shipping owned yesteryear Overseas (D) was taking on crude at a wharf that was near by.
-Some of the crude spilled, concentrated at P’s wharf.
-P stopped welding activities as well as assessed the danger. He talked to others as well as based on this as well as his ain agreement of furnace oil, he idea that it was security to resume operate amongst necessary precautions.
-Two days afterwards the crude lit on burn downwards as well as damaged P’s equipment as well as the wharf.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
-The lawsuit guess found that the P could non accept reasonable known that this crude would ignite when spread on water.
-The bear witness established that at that spot was a slice of cotton fiber supported yesteryear merely about debris that was laying underneath the wharf as well as this lit when molten metallic from the wharf came into contact amongst it.
-Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed yesteryear the Supreme Court of South Wales.
ISSUE
-Is a negligent accused responsible for all the consequences of his actions whether reasonably foreseeable or not?
HOLDING
No, a negligent accused is NOT responsible for ALL of the consequences of his actions (those that are non foreseeable).
RULES
-A accused is exclusively liable for the consequences of his actions that are reasonably foreseeable at the fourth dimension that he acts.
ANALYSIS
-Polemis is no longer practiced constabulary (it held that a accused was responsible for actions that were unforeseeable consequences of his negligence).
-It is a regulation of civil liability that a defendant’s liability should move express to those acts that are natural as well as in all likelihood consequences of his act
-What are natural as well as in all likelihood consequences of the act? Those acts that are foreseeable.
-To follow Polemis as well as brand the examination hinge on a decision of what causes are straight would move to invite the never ending occupation of causation.
-Therefore, the inquiry should be: was the impairment caused yesteryear something that a reasonable human being should accept foreseen?
---
Interested inward learning how to acquire the superlative grades inward your constabulary schoolhouse classes? Want to acquire how to written report smarter than your competition? Interested inward transferring to a high ranked school?