The Wagon Mound (1) [1961] AC 388

KEY POINTS

• In the context of tortious liability for negligence, the key elements include the plaintiff proving that the defendant owed a duty to them, that the defendant breached that duty, and that this breach resulted in damage.

• Importantly, tortious liability is not based on the act itself but on its consequences. Liability arises only when the damage has occurred. The focus is on the foreseeable consequences of the negligent act.

FACTS

• The Appellants, who chartered the ship "Wagon Mound," were sued by the Respondents, shipbuilders and owners of Sheerlegs Wharf in Sydney Harbour. The Respondents sought damages for fire damage caused by furnace oil, spilled due to the Appellants' negligence, which caught fire on November 1, 1951. 

• The oil spread beneath and around Sheerlegs Wharf, damaging it and interfering with welding operations. The trial established the sequence of events leading to the fire, attributing it to ordinary furnace oil with a flashpoint of about 170°F.

• Despite evidence presented during the trial regarding the fire hazard posed by the spilled furnace oil on seawater, the Appellants argued that, based on findings, the critical issue was whether it was foreseeable that ordinary furnace oil on seawater constituted a fire hazard. 

• The evidence, including experiments by a chemical engineering professor, suggested that, at the material time, furnace oil on seawater was not considered a fire hazard by anyone. The professor's tests, conducted after the incident, supported this view.

JUDGEMENT

• Respondents were not liable for damages.

COMMENTARY

• Wagon Mound (No 1) is a landmark case that shaped the principles of negligence, foreseeability, and causation in tort law. Its significance lies in providing clarity on the factors determining liability and contributing to the development of foundational concepts in negligence cases.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• A person can be held liable for indirect damage provided the intervening events were reasonably foreseeable.

Viscount Simonds

• It is too harsh a rule to hold a man responsible that for a consequence that he did not and could not reasonably have foreseen. 

RELATED CASES

• Wagon Mound (2)

• Lamb v Camden LBC