I have a question about these 2 cases:

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Mort's Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Pty Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 2)) [1967] 1 AC 617

Both of these 2 cases are based on one fact, but with the different plaintiffs, the outcomes are rather different:

In the first case, the court said that it was not reasonably foreseeable that the oil would catch on fire in the water, there is some risk, but not a high one as it normally would not have ignited.

However, in the second case, the court said that a properly qualified and alert engineer would have realized there was a real risk (not far fetched risk)

So what causes such a difference in the outcome of these 2 cases, when they are based on the same fact?

Context:

Please search Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Mort's Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 and Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Pty Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 2)) [1967] 1 AC 617 on website.

Defendant charterer of ship; employees negligently allowed spilled oil into the water and it congealed around the wharf and another ship. Few days later, oil caught fire and damaged the wharf and the other ship. The Wagon Mound No l (claim by owner of wharf) Privy Council said test of liability was not whether the damage was the direct or natural cause of the act but if it was - reasonably foreseeable (it was not reasonably foreseeable that the . oil would catch fire in the water some risk but not a high one; -. ' ;. 1; flashpoint of oil 170 deg and would not normally have ignited on water) ' I ' The Wagon Mound No 2 [claim by owner of other ship) argued that the trial iudge was wrong in holding that the damage from the fire was not reasonably foreseeable. Privy Council found that it was reasonably foreseeable. \"A reasonable man would have realised or foreseen and prevented the risk\" per Lord Reid A properly qualified and alert engineer would have realised there was a real risk (notL far fetched risk)