UK V. WAGON MOUND case brief

 UK V. WAGON MOUND

• Wagon Mound spilled oil into the water; fire on Mort’s Dock; Mort’s sued WM

• court find that WM is not liable for the fire damage to the dock

• court finds that it is not foreseeable that oil on top of water will not lead to fire

• Under Polemis, there would be liability. The court rejects Polemis.

• Polemis is not good law because it stands for the proposition that foreseeability is not the test. The court wants to replace the direct/indirect test with the foreseeability test.

• Jurisprudential housework: rejection of Polemis, and adoption of foreseeability test

• POLICY rationale: can’t expect defendant to be responsible for every injury that occurred after its conduct. It’s simply not fair. P. 407 – a man must be considered to be responsible for the probable consequences of his act. To demand more of him is too harsh a rule, to demand less is to ignore that civilized order requires the observance of a minimum standard of behavior.

• Wagon Mound II (Tort Stories)

• ships (docked in the water when the fire occurred) were damaged; shipowners sue Wagon Mound

• rule in WM 1 is that injury was unforeseeable and therefore WM not liable to Mort’s Dock

• However, the court changes its reasoning in the second case, holding WM liable and granting the shipowners damages

• Court sees some type of foreseeability that damage of the ships was foreseeable.

• There seems to be a paradox. How can these two cases be reconciled?

• In WM 1, the dock owners were welding. The court may have deemed that this action might have constituted contributory negligence.

• In WM 2, shipowner plaintiffs were in no way contributorily negligent. So they get to recover.

• The potential loss in WM 2 is huge – the ships were serious property.