“Liability exists for foreseeable risks even if probability is small.”
Same oil spillage incident as Wagon Mound (No 1), but brought by different claimants (owners of ships damaged in the fire). Evidence showed that although fire risk was small, it was not negligible.
Whether the defendants could be liable for fire damage when the risk was foreseeable but of low probability, and how foreseeability relates to the standard of care.
The Privy Council held the defendants liable. Although the fire risk was small, it was foreseeable and the reasonable person would have taken precautions against it.
This case refines the foreseeability test by establishing that low probability does not negate foreseeability. It demonstrates how the same legal test can produce different results on different evidence.
You're reading the free summary of The Wagon Mound (No 2). Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 2)) [1967] 1 AC 617
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.