Facts
- An oil burning vessel, was chartered by the appellants, Overseas Tankship Ltd., and was taking fuel oil at Sydney port.
- At a distance of about 600 feet, the respondents, Morts Dock Company, owned a wharf, where the repairs of a ship including some welding operations were going on.
- Due to the negligence of appellants’ servants, a large quantity of oil was spilt on the water. The oil which was spread over the water was carried to the respondent’s wharf.
- About 60 hours thereafter, molten metal from the respondent’s wharf fell on floating cotton waste, which ignited the fuel oil on the water and the fire caused great damage to the wharf and equipment.
- It was also found that the appellant could not foresee that the oil so spilt would catch fire.•
- Two test to determine whether the damage is remote or not
- The test of reasonable foresight
- The test of directness
Principles
Test of reasonable foresight
- Intervening act between the defendants act and plaintiffs injury
- Novus actus intervenes − A new act intervenes − Sustained the maxim
- A molten metal was brought into the oil spills
- The possibility of duplicate recovery in the same case
- Contributory negligence was also part of it
- Privcy council
- Not liable
The test of directness as laid down in Re Polemis has been considered to be incorrect and the same was rejected by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1961 in Overseas Tankship Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engg. Co. Ltd., (Wagon Mound Case) in an appeal from New South Wales and it was held that the test of reasonable foresight was the better test.
