Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. [Wagon Mound No. 1]
Privy Council
[1961] A.C. 388 (1961)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Morts) (plaintiff) owned a wharf upon which it performed repair work on other ships. Morts used welding and burning techniques. A ship owned by Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. (Tankship) (defendant) was docked at the Sydney harbor at a neighboring wharf to Morts’. During this time, Tankships’ ship leaked oil into the harbor. After the ship set sail, the tide carried the oil near Morts’ wharf and required its employees to cease welding and burning. Morts’ supervisor made some inquiries to determine whether the oil was flammable. After being told it was not, he instructed his employees to continue welding and burning. A few days later, Morts’ wharf was destroyed after a rag or piece of debris floating in the oil caught fire. Morts brought suit against Tankship. At trial, the trial judge found that Tankship did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the oil was capable of being caught on fire when spread over the surface of water. Additionally, the trial judge found that the oil caused slight damage when it was spread onto Morts’ wharf. The trial court granted judgment for Morts, and Tankship appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Viscount Simonds)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.