Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound No. 1)
[1961] AC 388
판결 이유
In tort, a defendant is liable only for damage that was reasonably foreseeable as a result of their negligence. The directness test from Re Polemis is rejected.
사실관계
The defendant's vessel, Wagon Mound, discharged furnace oil into Sydney Harbour. The oil spread to the claimant's wharf. Sparks from welding work ignited the oil, causing a fire that damaged the wharf. The oil spillage was negligent, but fire damage from spilled oil in water was not reasonably foreseeable.
판결 요약
The Privy Council held that the defendants were not liable for the fire damage because such damage was not reasonably foreseeable at the time of the negligent act. The court rejected the 'direct consequence' test from Re Polemis in favour of a foreseeability test for remoteness of damage.
주요 인용문
"It does not seem consonant with current ideas of justice or morality that for an act of negligence, however slight or venial, which results in some trivial foreseeable damage the actor should be liable for all consequences however unforeseeable and however grave."
— Viscount Simonds
후속 처리
Established the modern test for remoteness in negligence, replacing Re Polemis.
Applied in Hughes v Lord Advocate and The Wagon Mound (No. 2).