Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co (The Wagon Mound No 2)
[1967] 1 AC 617
Ratio Decidendi
Damage is reasonably foreseeable (and therefore not too remote) if there is a real risk of its occurrence, even if the probability is small. A reasonable person would not ignore a risk which was real and not far-fetched or fanciful.
Ffeithiau
The same oil spill as The Wagon Mound (No 1). This action was brought by owners of ships damaged by the fire, with different evidence suggesting that fire damage from oil on water, though unlikely, was not unforeseeable.
Crynodeb o'r dyfarniad
The Privy Council (Lord Reid delivering the advice) held that the charterers of the Wagon Mound were liable in negligence and nuisance for the fire damage to the respondents' ships, because on the evidence in this case the risk of the furnace oil on the water catching fire was reasonably foreseeable. Although the probability of ignition was very low, the risk was a real one and not far-fetched or fanciful; the ship's chief engineer ought to have known of it, and there was no justification for taking the risk of discharging the oil, since it could easily have been avoided and there was no advantage to the defendants in running it. A reasonable person does not brush aside as negligible a small but real risk of serious harm unless there is some valid reason for doing so. The different outcome from The Wagon Mound (No 1) turned on the fuller and different evidence about foreseeability led in this action. The case refines the remoteness test of Wagon Mound (No 1) and draws on the risk analysis in Bolton v Stone.
Dyfyniadau allweddol
"A reasonable man would only neglect a risk which was of a far-fetched or fanciful character."
— Lord Reid
Triniaeth ddilynol
Clarifies the foreseeability test: even small risks are foreseeable if not 'far-fetched or fanciful'. Also applies the Bolton v Stone standard.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Get Professional Help