Talk:Overseas Tankship v Miller Steamship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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).
