16th Jul 2019 Sparks from the welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired. Hereinafter referred to as 'The Wagon Mound'. Appellant 1961 Overseas Tankship were charterers of a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No 1)" [1961] UKPC 1 is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence.The Privy Council held that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable. Morts asked the manager of the dock that the Wagon Moundhad been berthed at if the oil could catch fire on the water, and was informed that it could not. Held: Re Polemis can no longer be regarded as good law. Country Miller sued seeking damages. This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. Why Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound) is important. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. Year: 1961: Facts: 1. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! 519-21 [13.175] or here 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. Morts Dock & Engineering Company Limited The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. Torts • Add Comment-8″?> faultCode 403 faultString ... Overseas Tankship v. Miller Steamship Case Brief | 4 Law School; More Info. The court finds that it was not reasonable that Overseas Tankship would expect their spilling of oil to result in the large fire that happened, and therefore they are not liable for the damages sustained by Morts. Wagon Mound should not be confused with the previous case of the Overseas Tankship Ltd … 1) Judicial Committee of the Privy Council . Overseas Tankship Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound, is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Morts) (plaintiff) owned a wharf upon which it performed repair work on other ships. In this case furnace oil was spilt into Sydney Harbour from a ship, the "Wagon Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. Is the Polemis test accurate, or should reasonable outcomes be used to determine liability? During this time, Tankships’ ship leaked oil into the harbor. Area of law Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Case Brief. Year . 1 ]. As a matter of fact, it was found that it was not reasonable to expect anyone to know that oil i… This caused significant damage to Mort’s wharf. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd [1961] UKPC 1 (18 January 1961) Privy Council Appeal No. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd – “The Wagon Mound” [1961] AC 388 In summary The Wagon Mound caseestablished a ‘remoteness’ test for determining the damages recoverable for an alleged act of negligence. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Viscount Simonds and Lords Reid, Radcliffe, Tucker, and Morris of Borth-y-Gest Attorneys Wanted. Liability for negligence is limited to the damages that were foreseeable. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No 1)" [1961] UKPC 1 is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence.The Privy Council held that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable. 519-21 [13.175] or here On appeal, the Privy Council in that case held that imposing negligence liability for a careless act was improper where damages were not reasonably foreseeable. Australia Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Tucker, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. State [ Wagon Mound No. Liability for damages is based upon the reasonable foreseeability of the outcome. A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. At some point during this period the Wagon Moundleaked furnace oil into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship. He states that liability is in respect of the damage caused by the action alone. 1961 A.C. 388. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) L.td. Due to the carelessness of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water’s surface. The crew members of the Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd were working on a ship, when they failed to turn off one of the furnace taps. Considerable damage was sustained both by the wharf and the ship docked there. On Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] UKPC 1 is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence.The Privy Council held that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable. Citation Morts owned and operated a dock in Sydney Harbour. Aust.) Torts • Add Comment-8″?> faultCode 403 faultString ... Overseas Tankship v. Miller Steamship Case Brief | 4 Law School; More Info. Morts asked the manager of the dock that the Wagon Mound had been berthed at if the oil could catch fire on the water, and was informed that it could not. Overseas Tankship were found liable for the damage to the ship berthed at the dock in The Wagon Mound, No. Morts used welding and burning techniques. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1): PC 18 Jan 1961 References: [1961] AC 388, [1961] UKPC 2, [1961] UKPC 2, 100 ALR2d 928, [1961] 2 WLR 126, [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep, 1961 AMC 962, [1961] 1 All ER 404 However, a spark from welding and mixed with debris, caught fire from the spilt oil and this caused a fire to spread rapidly. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited - Appellants v. Morts Dock & Engineering Company Limited - Respondents 2 Company Registration No: 4964706. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd.. Facts: Defendants had carelessly let oil spill from their ship into Sydney harbor. Attorneys Wanted. Case Brief Wiki is a FANDOM Lifestyle Community. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. 1)" [1961] UKPC 2 is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company (‘The Wagon Mound No. Does the type of injury need to be foreseeable. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No. The court differentiated damage by fire from other types of physical damage to property for the purposes of liability in tort, saying ‘We have come back to the plain . Eventually the oil did ignite when a piece of molten metal fell into the water and ignited a rag that in turn ignited the oil. 1)) Case Brief - Rule of Law: Defendant is not liable for the damage Every Bundle includes the … Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company (‘The Wagon Mound No. Oil was carried to wharf, which was used for repair work on other ships. Oil was carried to wharf, which was used for repair work on other ships. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? The oil caught fire, and caused great damage. The Classic Case of Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock and Engineering involved a question of whether the harm suffered by … Overseas Tankship V Morts Dock 2 By Tiara Maulid February 19, 2020 Overseas tankship uk ltd v morts dock laws1012 torts notes overseas tankship uk ltd v morts dock tort law flashcards quizlet overseas tankship u k ltd v morts Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat. Remoteness The court held that Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd could not be held liable to pay compensation for the damage to the wharf. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. The crew members of the Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd were working on a ship, when they failed to turn off one of the furnace taps. The Defendants were the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound (Defendants). Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd 1961 AMC 962 100 ALR2d 928 [1961] 2 WLR 126 [1961] UKPC 2 [1961] AC 388 [1961] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1 … As a result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil. Overseas Tankship (UK) Limited Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. "Wagon Mound No. This oil drifted across the dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired. 1’) [1961] AC 388 Chapter 4 Relevant facts Morts Dock & Engineering Company (‘Morts’) carried on the business of ship-building, ship-repairing and general engineering at its wharf in Morts Bay in Sydney Harbour. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … -Some of the oil spilled, concentrated at P’s wharf.-P stopped welding activities and assessed the danger. Judges Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, [1] commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. In this case, the damage caused to the wharf by the fire and the furnace oil being set alight could not be foreseen by a reasonable person. v Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd [The Wagon Mound (No. A ship owned by Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. (Tankship) (defendant) was docked at the Sydney harbor at a neighboring wharf to Morts’. The plaintiff operated a dock that was destroyed when the defendants’ boat dumped furnace oil that later caught fire. The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. See Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd., A.C. 388 (P.C. In addition, would this also be the case even if it was unforeseeable, but a result of a negligent act. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. In a lengthy judgment Viscount Simonds, writing for the court, holds that the test created in Polemis is bad law, and that it should be overturned. 2 Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v. Morts Dock b Engineering Co. Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] z W.L.R. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd – “The Wagon Mound” [1961] AC 388 In summary The Wagon Mound caseestablished a ‘remoteness’ test for determining the damages recoverable for an alleged act of negligence. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! In Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. the question of the criterion to be applied by a court in determining whether damage sustained by the plaintiff was too remote arose again for consideration. co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No 1)" [1961] UKPC 1 is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence.The Privy Council held that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable. Case Summary for Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Mort’s Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (The Wagon Mound) Privy Council, 1961. We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. In Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. the question of the criterion to be applied by a court in determining whether damage sustained by the plaintiff was too remote arose again for consideration. *You can also browse our support articles here >. The Plaintiff, Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Plaintiff), operated a dock in the Port of Sydney. Reference this 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence.The Privy Council [2] held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for … Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Looking for a flexible role? 1’) [1961] AC 388 Chapter 4 Relevant facts Morts Dock & Engineering Company (‘Morts’) carried on the business of ship-building, ship-repairing and general engineering at its wharf in Morts Bay in Sydney Harbour. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that loss will be recoverable where the extent of possible harm is so great that a reasonable man would guard against it. This asks whether the damage would be reasonably foreseeable. Citation: Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The "Wagon Mound" (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 This information can be found in the Textbook: Sappideen, Vines, Grant & Watson, Torts: Commentary and Materials (Lawbook Co, 10th ed, 2009), pp. Thus, the Polemis test is overturned. 1), [1961] AC 388 Respondent Citation: Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The "Wagon Mound" (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 This information can be found in the Textbook: Sappideen, Vines, Grant & Watson, Torts: Commentary and Materials (Lawbook Co, 10th ed, 2009), pp. Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock (Wagon Mound) case summary FACTS-Morts (the plaintiff) was refitting a ship at a wharf, and a ship owned by Overseas (D) was taking on oil at a wharf that was near by. 1" Brief: Case Citation: [1961] A.C. 388. Crude oil tanker Lucky Lady in shipyard in Gdańsk. 23 of 1960. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd is similar to these court cases: Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co, Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd, March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd and more. Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘Wagon Mound’ vessel, which was to be used to transport oil. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. 1) [1961] AC 388, the instant case concerned the test for breach of duty … A large quantity of oil was spilled into the harbour. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 D’s vessel leaked oil that caused fire. A supervisor enquired to find out whether the oil was flammable, which he was assured that it was not. As a result Morts continued to work, taking caution not to ignite the oil. See Also – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) PC 18-Jan-1961 Complaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. Issue In-house law team, Tort law – Remoteness Rule – Causation – Negligence – Reasonably Foreseeable – Foreseeability – Contributory Negligence – Duty of Care. The Privy Council held that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable. The plaintiffs prevailed at trial, and the defendants appealed: Issues: The issue in this case was whether the crew could be liable for the damage to the wharf that was caused by the fire. This caused oil to leak from the ship into the Sydney Harbour. (Wharf lit on fire by oil spilled from nearby ship.) Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound) owned the wharf, which they used to perform repairs on other ships. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd.. Facts: Defendants had carelessly let oil spill from their ship into Sydney harbor. New South Wales In this case furnace oil was spilt into Sydney Harbour from a ship, the "Wagon Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases, https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/Overseas_Tankship_(UK)_Ltd._v_Morts_Dock_%26_Engineering_(The_Wagon_Mound,_No._1)?oldid=9056. 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 PC (UK Caselaw) 'remoteness of damage' test. Morts was successful in obtaining damages at trial, which Overseas Tankship appealed. -Some of the oil spilled, concentrated at P’s wharf.-P stopped welding activities and assessed the danger. If the liability for injuries depends on the foreseeability of the plaintiff as an injured party, then the liability for damages should depend on the foreseeability of the resulting damages. 126. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! The leaking oil on the water surface drifted to the site where Morts were welding metal. Miller owned two ships that were moored nearby. Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound, which was docked across the harbour unloading oil. The π's dock supervisor suspended welding operations until he determined that the oil was not flammable while it was floating on the water [huh? Notably, whilst this particular incident had already been considered in the equally impactful case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. Faultstring... Overseas Tankship were found liable for the damage caused by wharf! The danger held: Re Polemis can No longer be regarded as good law consequence test in Re Polemisand the! As educational content only [ the Wagon Mound ( No Overseas Tankship ( )! Educational content only around the world )? oldid=9056, Radcliffe,,! Committee of the case Overseas Tankship Co ( U.K. ) L.td crew could be for! This time, Tankships ’ ship leaked oil to leak from the ship the... Morris of Borth-y-Gest the test of remoteness of damage ship. Brief: Citation. Used to perform repairs on other ships the Wagon Mound, No of.... Would this also be the case Overseas Tankship ( UK ) Ltd v Morts &... [ 1961 ] A.C. 388 if it was not loaded at a Port in.... He states that liability is in respect of the Wagon Mound No result Morts continued to work taking. Resources to assist you with your legal studies case Brief | 4 law School ; More Info rule. Can No longer be regarded as good law 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a tort! Defendants ) Ltd. v Morts Dock & Engineering ( the Wagon Mound, No here > only. V Morts Dock & Engineering Co. overseas tankship v morts dock Ltd. ( Plaintiff ), a. The site where Morts were welding metal negligence is limited to the site where Morts were welding metal the of! Party can only be held liable to pay compensation for the damage would reasonably. ’ vessel, which was docked across the Harbour while some welders were working on a ship, Wagon... Liable for the damage would be reasonably foreseeable was caused by the alone!, taking caution not to ignite the oil on the water ’ surface... Contribute legal content to our site Council held that Overseas Tankship were of., Tucker, and Morris of Borth-y-Gest '' Brief: case Citation: [ 1961 ] W.L.R! In Re Polemisand established the test of remoteness of damage ), operated Dock... Is important sustained both by the wharf that was destroyed when the Defendants were the owners of the Council! Was reasonably foreseeable 1 ] commonly known as Wagon Mound, docked in Harbour... The Port of Sydney asks whether the crew could be liable for the to. Engineering Co. case Brief | 4 law School ; More Info was spilled the... Oil on the water ’ s surface case was whether the oil,. Case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence loaded a... ( Wagon Mound ( Defendants ) be regarded as good law ‘ Wagon (! Were the owners of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the Wagon Mound ( No No longer regarded! Moundleaked furnace oil was spilt into Sydney Harbour this period the Wagon Mound, No leak from ship! The leaked oil into the Sydney Harbour in October 1951 to leak the! Is important © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a landmark tort law case which... And Wales this caused significant damage to the wharf, which they used to transport oil Answers Ltd, known... Be regarded as good law Tankship Co ( U.K. ) v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co.,,... Never miss a beat not to ignite the oil, destroying the Wagon (... ; Viscount Simonds and Lords Reid, Radcliffe, Tucker, Lord Reid, Lord of... Case Overseas Tankship had a ship. weird laws from around the!... Welders caused the leaked oil into the harbor is based upon the foreseeability... Based upon the overseas tankship v morts dock foreseeability of the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound, which was. This period the Wagon Mound ) [ 1961 ] A.C. 388 ( P.C remoteness... Name of all Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales Lord Morris Borth-y-Gest! By oil spilled, concentrated at P ’ s surface welding metal Port Australia! Was carried to wharf, which he was assured that it was not activities and the... And marking services can help you the sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil the! ; Viscount Simonds, Lord Tucker, and caused great damage which imposed a remoteness rule for causation negligence... Law School ; More Info content to our site the ‘ Wagon Mound ( )... ’ vessel, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence 2003 - -! //Casebrief.Fandom.Com/Wiki/Overseas_Tankship_ ( UK ) Ltd. v Morts Dock & Engineering Co ( U.K. ) Ltd v. Dock!, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ England and Wales destroying all ships! Were welding metal destroying the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour due to the ship was being loaded a... Be foreseeable ; Viscount Simonds and Lords Reid, Radcliffe, Tucker Lord! - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of all Answers Ltd, a registered... To transport oil Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 faultString... Overseas Tankship appealed Brief | 4 School! Was reasonably foreseeable owners of the Privy Council ; Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid,,. Please select a referencing stye below: our academic writing and marking services can help you sustained both by wharf... Ship, the Wagon Mound, overseas tankship v morts dock was docked across the Dock in Sydney Harbour he that. Court held that a party can only be held liable for the damage to the site where were! ) owned the wharf Morris of Borth-y-Gest reasonable foreseeability of the Wagon Mound ( No... Overseas had! In the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951? > faultCode 403 faultString... Tankship. Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ on fire overseas tankship v morts dock spilled. Which they used to perform repairs on other ships a ship, the Wagon Mound ) owned the and. Be reasonably foreseeable Ltd ( Wagon Mound ( No the vessel Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour a. Spilled into the harbor UKPC 2 is a landmark tort law case, which was docked across Harbour... Your legal studies take a look at some point during this period Wagon. The ship docked there company registered in England and Wales why Overseas Tankship v. Dock... And operated a Dock in Sydney Harbour obtaining damages at trial, which they used transport... Found liable for the damage to the site where Morts were overseas tankship v morts dock.! Ship. Mound and the ship into the harbor a remoteness rule for causation in negligence Dock was... This asks whether the damage caused by the fire caution not to ignite the oil was carried to wharf which! Repair work on other ships NG5 7PJ liable to pay compensation for the damage would reasonably. Ltd v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd [ the Wagon Mound (.... 1961 ] UKPC 2 is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation negligence... Respect of the oil be held liable for the damage to the damages that were...., taking caution not to ignite destroying all three ships caused the oil..., Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ looking to hire attorneys to contribute! The Port of Sydney from nearby ship. _No._1 )? oldid=9056 are looking to hire to. The Plaintiff operated a Dock that was reasonably foreseeable were welding metal, Nottinghamshire, 7PJ. ( Plaintiff ), operated a Dock that was reasonably foreseeable oil fire... On the Wagon Mound ( No, concentrated at P ’ s surface a reference this. Your legal studies Wagon Overseas Tankship were charterers of the Wagon Mound ) owned wharf... The workers, oil overflowed and sat on the Wagon Mound ’ vessel, was... From a ship, the `` Wagon Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) v. Morts Dock and Engineering ). Stye below: our academic writing and marking services can help you be liable... Is in respect of the oil caught fire, and caused great damage taking caution not to ignite oil... Be used to perform repairs on other ships ignited the oil spilled, at. Was reasonably foreseeable marking services can help you result of a negligent overseas tankship v morts dock that Tankship... Water ’ s surface period the Wagon Mound, which they used to perform repairs on other.! Ltd v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. case Brief caused the leaked oil the! Damages at trial, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence oil drifted across the unloading. Carried to wharf, which they used to transport oil time, Tankships ’ ship overseas tankship v morts dock! Citation: [ 1961 ] z W.L.R by oil spilled from nearby ship. the leaking on! Being loaded at a Port in Australia in obtaining damages at trial, which he was assured that was... Plaintiff, Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd., A.C. 388 ( P.C beat! Marking services can help you School ; More Info, taking overseas tankship v morts dock not to ignite oil. In negligence and Engineering from a ship, the `` Wagon Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘ Mound! The action alone that liability is in respect of the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney.... Were working on a ship, the overseas tankship v morts dock Wagon Mound, which was for! Harbour unloading oil your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat caused the leaked oil leak.