Talk:Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I removed these passages from the article:
- ==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.
I don't think they're correct and thought it better the article said nothing than gave incorrect information. I'll check the case and sort out the article hopefully later today. Crebbin 10:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC).
The text was right after all - I was thinking of the earlier (1961) Wagon Mound case. I've replaced it, having reworded it a little. Crebbin 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC).
- -- I don't think that's correct. The so-called 'calculus of negligence' (I think that case is quoted in US contexts as an analysis of calculus of negligence) generally refers to reasonable forseeability in the determination of what an appropriate standard of care is, that is, what is the proper duty of care, and whether a defendant has met it. Reasonable forseeability in the Wagon Mound cases is about whether a particular damage is reasonably forseeable as a consequence of the negligence. This means that this question must necessarily arise only after a breach, whereas the first question arises even before a breach is established. The Wagon Mound cases simply changed the law from directness as the test for remoteness (Re Polemis) to reasonable forseeability. --121.44.120.25 (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)