Find out the difference between Wagon Mound 1 and Wagon Mound 2?

Wagon Mound No. 1

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd

The defendants spilled some furnace oil into the harbor. Afterward, it caught on

fire. Was it foreseeable? The plaintiff tries to demonstrate his case according to
Polemis. If the plaintiffs can show that they weren’t negligent, they may be able
to recover under this rule. Under the direct caution theory, if the plaintiff isn't negli
gent, at that point the defendant must be liable.

The court uses sort of a Hadley v. Baxendale rule. This change within

the law follows a similar view incontracts. Damages are restricted to what is
foreseeable. This is the rule now. Damage must be foreseeable.
The defendant wins!

Wagon Mound No. 2

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co
the different about this case is the lawyering. The lawyer brings forth evidence that
something like this has happened before, and thus the engineer should have
been aware that this was a possibility. Another difference between the cases is that
the plaintiffs will not be banned from recovery by their own negligence

This case makes it exceptionally difficult for a defendant to avoid liability. This

case, according to Cole, is driven by what the engineer should have
known about the risk of oil on water catching on fire.The defendant loses.

SUMMARY:
Basically Wagon Mound 1 created the remoteness test (liability only for
foreseeable losses), but Wagon Mound 2 dealt with duty of care: If the potential
loss is great, even a remote chance is enough to trigger a duty of care.
QUESTION NO: 2

Write up note on Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Exch 781?

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781[1] 

Introduction:
This case concerns reasonableness within the law of negligence. It is popular for its
classic statement of what negligence is and the standard of care to be met.

Defendant installed the water mains on the street where Plaintiff lived. The
defendant took necessary precautions but one of the plugs on the pipes sprang a
leak because of a severe winter frost. The pipes were over 25 years old. Water
seeped through Plaintiff's house and caused damage. Plaintiff sued Defendant for
negligence and to recover for damages. 

Issues:

Can a person avoid liability in negligence if he takes precautions that conform to

the standard followed by a reasonable person?

Rule:

A person can avoid liability in negligence if he takes precautions that conform to

the standard followed by a reasonable person.

Held:

No. Verdict was entered for Defendants. No prove was entered showing any acts

or failures to act on the part of Defendants such as could comprise negligence.
The evidence showed that Defendants routinely took precautions against
cold weather, and that only due to a particularly and unforeseeably cold winter did
any harm occur. This was properly characterized as an accident, not as negligence.