| Overseas Tankship V Miller Steamship |
Article Index for Overseas |
Website Links For Overseas |
Information AboutOverseas Tankship V Miller Steamship |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT OVERSEAS TANKSHIP V MILLER STEAMSHIP | |
| judicial committee of the privy council cases | |
| tort case law | |
| 1966 in law | |
|
BACKGROUND The defendant owned a freighter ship named the Wagon Mound which was moored at a dock. The plaintiff owned two ships that were moored nearby. At some point during this period the Wagon Mound leaked furance oil into the harbour while some welders were working on a ship. The sparks from the welders caused the leaked oil to ignite destroying all three ships. The appeal to the Privy Council was on the basis of whether the defendant should be liable. OPINION OF THE COUNCIL The council found that a reasonable person in the shoes of the ship's engineer would have been aware of the risk of fire. Since the gravity of the potential damage was so great there is no excuse for allowing the oil to be discharged. A "reasonable man" would only neglect a risk of such a potentially great magnitude if he had a reason to do so, e.g. if it was cost prohibitive. IMPLICATIONS AND ANALYSIS This idea may be seen to bring the concept or formula of negligence originally proposed by Learned Hand in '' United States V. Carroll Towing Co. '' 159 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1947) within the realm of legal causation. Such a formulation of the issue has struck some in the field as an argument along the lines typically made in the Law & Economics camp usually seen to be represented by Judge Posner. This case has been severely criticized since there was a liability imposed based on proximate cause even when there is no reasonable, foreseeable danger. SEE ALSO |
|
|