awesome blog

Torts – Lecture One Cases

Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Southport Corp

Court of Appeal

03 June 1954

Case Analysis

Where Reported

[1954] 2 Q.B. 182; [1954] 3 W.L.R. 200; [1954] 2 All E.R. 561; [1954] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 446; (1954) 118 J.P. 411; 52 L.G.R. 404; (1954) 98 S.J. 472

Case Digest

Subject: Negligence

Keywords: Causes of action; Oil pollution; Res ipsa loquitur; Sea pollution; Seaworthiness

Summary: Res ipsa loquitur; stranding of vessel

Abstract: In deciding whether a plaintiff has made out a case of negligence it is useful to bear in mind the test laid down by Erle, C.J. in Scott v London and St Katherine's Dock Co: "There must be reasonable evidence of negligence. But where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care.".Per Singleton, L.J.: "I cannot accept the submission that no duty is owed by those on, or responsible for, a ship to persons, whether owners or occupiers, on shore. There is a duty to act reasonably - in other words, a duty not unnecessarily to do an act which any reasonable person in charge of a ship would know to be likely to cause injury to those on shore."Owing to a defect in the steering, the defendants' tanker took a heavy sheer to starboard, which could not be corrected, and ran aground on the revetment wall in an estuary. The master, fearing that the tanker would break her back, ordered the discharge of the oil in order to refloat her. The oil became deposited on the foreshore and on a marine lake belonging to the plaintiffs, causing them to be closed for a time while the plaintiffs spent a substantial sum making good the damage. There was no evidence to show what the condition of the steering was at any time prior to the day of the stranding and no evidence to show how the damage might have occurred. Devlin, J. held that the plaintiffs had a cause of action in trespass or nuisance as well as in negligence, but that they were not entitled to succeed on those heads of claim in the absence of negligence, which he held had not been proved.

Held, on appeal, if the defendants produced a reasonable explanation, equally consistent with negligence or no negligence, the burden of proving that the defendants were negligent and that their negligence caused the damage rested on the plaintiffs; the plaintiffs had given evidence which pointed to negligence on the part of the defendants, and that case had not been answered; consequently, the plaintiffs were entitled to succeed, and the appeal must be allowed. Scott v London & St Katherine Docks Co [1861-73] All E.R. Rep. 248 Ex Ct and Llanover, The (1946) 79 Ll. L. Rep. 159 PDAD applied; Merchant Prince, The [1892] P. 179 CA; Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd [1947] A.C. 156 HL; Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callagan (Trustees for St Joseph's Society for Foreign Missions) [1940] A.C. 880 HL; Weaver v Ward 80 E.R. 284 KB and Dickenson v Watson 84 E.R. 1218 KB considered. Per Denning, L.J.: (1) The plaintiffs could not sue in trespass; the discharge of oil was not done directly on to their foreshore, but outside in the estuary, the fact that it was carried by the tide on to their land being only consequential and not direct; (2) the discharge of oil was not a private nuisance, because it did not involve the use by the defendants of any land, but only of a ship at sea; (3) it was a public nuisance to discharge oil into the sea in such circumstances that it was likely to be carried on to the shores and beaches to the prejudice and discomfort of the public; therefore, the discharge of oil into the estuary was a public nuisance; (4) in public nuisance, as in trespass, the legal burden shifted to the defendant, and it was not sufficient for him to leave the matter in doubt; he must plead and prove a sufficient justification or excuse; (5) the burden of proving that she herself was not at fault was on the ship; the defendants could only escape liability if they could prove that the discharge of oil was an unavoidable necessity, ie, a necessity which arose utterly without their fault; in other words, that they committed no negligence to give occasion to it; (6) the defendants had not shown that the failure of the steering had happened without their fault; they had, therefore, not discharged the burden upon them, and they were liable for the nuisance which they had caused; (7) if the steering gear had been in order, there would have been plain negligence; the ship sought to escape from this charge of negligence by saying that the steering gear had failed and she was out of control; but that was no answer unless she proved - and the legal burden was on her to prove - that it was no fault of hers that the steering gear had failed; she had not discharged that burden, or even attempted to discharge it; she was, therefore, liable; (8) if the burden had been on the plaintiffs throughout to prove that the ship was at fault, the facts spoke for themselves; the defendants had not given any explanation of how the steering gear could go wrong, consistent with due diligence; the inference of negligence should, therefore, be drawn; (9) the defendants could not complain of omissions in the plaintiffs' pleading when it was their own reticence which had led to them; and (10) it was only just and reasonable that the defendants should pay the cost of cleansing the foreshore unless they could show that they were in no way in fault; and that they had not done.