Austin s Sustainability Pl Austin - 1164 Words

Austin is the capital city of Texas, and is known by many as the live music capital of the world. It has both national and state historical roots; its culture is centered on the arts and entertainment. It spans 297.9 square miles, as of April 1st 2014 its population was 811,458 people. There are 344,289 households with a density of 2,653 people per square mile. As illustrated in figures 1 and 2 it is both ethnically and economically diverse. Austin has several major industries including technology, healthcare, business, and entertainment. It is a popular location for businesses and individuals because there is no income tax, it has a modern and efficient transportation network, the workforce is considered highly skilled, and†¦show more content†¦To improve upon these figures, Resolution 20140410-024 was supported in 2015 with Austin’s community climate plan â€Å"Net-Zero.† Spearheaded by the Community Climate Steering Committee, â€Å"Net-Zero† lays the framework for both the local government and community to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to near zero. Up to this point all city owned buildings and facilities are 100% reliant on renewable energies such as solar and wind energy. Pending projects will increase solar energy by 149 MW and wind energy by 400 MW. Figure shows Austin’s energy generation goals achieved by 2020. Figure 4: Austin s path to Net-Zero greenhouse gas emissions. iv. A Sustainable Food System Reducing CO2 emissions is an important part of a sustainable community, but changes in human behaviors are necessary to ensure these goals are met. An estimated 9.3 acres of farmland are lost every day in and around Austin. As of 2014 less than 1% of the food consumed in the region is produced locally, and of the food imported an estimated 97 thousand tons enters the landfill. This has a value of nearly $200 million. A great method for reducing food waste is composting, in the region approximately 1,837 tons, or 1.9% of the total waste, is being turned back into the soil. This is a part of Austin’s â€Å"field to fork† food system that addresses the growth, distribution, consumption, and recovery of food. Locally growing all food consumed in the region not only reduces transportationShow MoreRelatedCobit Framework21120 Words   |  85 Pagesali ty Fid uci ary Se cur ity Delivery and Support Domains People Application Systems Technology IT Processes Processes Facilities Data 16 IT GOVERNANCE INSTITUTE — COBIT FRAMEWORK IT Re so ur ce Activities s FRAMEWORK Monitoring All IT processes need to be regularly assessed over time for their quality and compliance with control requirements. This domain thus addresses management’s oversight of the organisation’s control process and independent assuranceRead MoreDells Supply Chain Strategies39734 Words   |  159 Pagespredictions about the end product demand over time [44]. 9 2.2 2.2.1 Dell’s Supply Chain Strategies General Information about Dell Dell was founded by Michael Dell in 1984, while he was still a student at the University of Texas in Austin. From its very first steps, the direct sales model was adopted: At the beginning computers were sold over the phone and they were built according to the customers specifications [28]. After a short break of using the retail channel from 1990 to 1994Read MoreContemporary Issues in Management Accounting211377 Words   |  846 Pagesglobal management accounting community. Alnoor Bhimani London School of Economics December 2005 CONTENTS ‘ FOREWORD Anthony Hopwood PREFACE Alnoor Bhimani CONTRIBUTORS 1. New measures in performance management Thomas Ahrens and Christopher S Chapman 2. Contract theory analysis of managerial accounting issues Stanley Baiman 3. Reframing management accounting practice: a diversity of perspectives Jane Baxter and Wai Fong Chua 4. Management accounting and digitization Alnoor Bhimani 5. TheRead MoreConflict Management and Emotional Intelligence63003 Words   |  253 Pageset    al.,   2002).       Researchers   have   related   personality  and   emotional  quotient,  and   have  investigated   the   relative   strength   of   association   of   emotional   quotient   and   personality   with   measures   such   as   social   80 support  (Austin  et  al.,  2004).            Past  rivalry   Conflict  is  really  all  about  history  (Iain,  2005).      When  people  are  not  neutral  to  the   matters  they  are  dealing  with  or  the  people  they  are  dealing  with,  a  history  of  bad   experiences  may  dominate  and  their  emotions  or  perceptions  may  determine  what

The Physics Of Golf Ball - 3380 Words

Fore! A Newtonian and Projectile Motion Study of the Golf Swing Physics Around Campus Tim Stoddard Physics 102 Spring 2015 Figure 1 below depicts a snap shot of the compact and physics-ridden entity known as a golf swing. Taken at my home in Olympia, WA, this picture was taken moments before the impact between my driver and the Titleist Pro V1 golf ball. The game of golf is riddled with physics concepts governing everything from the power generated in the swing, to every impact with the ball, to even the motion of the ball in the air and on the ground. Everything is governed by and can be explained by physics concepts. However, this paper will focus on the impact of the clubface and the ball (governed by Newtonian physics) and then its subsequent flight in the air as a projectile. We will look at both the first and second laws that Isaac Newton proposed as well as the resulting equations and concepts that come into effect when the ball is launched. The paper will conclude with a brief aside on the history surrounding the golf ball and its evolution, and subsequently why (in terms of physics) the golf bal l embodies a very unique and well-known physical form. To begin, consider a ball resting on the tee as can be seen in Figure 1. Before the golfer even begins his swing, we see evidence of our first physics concept. The ball is resting on the tee and is remaining there and ceasing to move because of Newton’s first law ofShow MoreRelatedThe Physics of a Golf Ball Essay1277 Words   |  6 PagesThe Physics of a Golf Ball The first written reference of golf was in 1457. Golf balls have had extraordinary changes since that time; theyve gone from leather pouches to dried gum to todays dimpled balls. These dimples help decrease the drag and increase the lift. Different forces are applied to the golf ball when struck by the club. Golf clubs have grooves to create backspin. And then there are different variables that affect how a golf ball will travel, these include: lie angle andRead MorePhysics Roles in Golf634 Words   |  3 PagesPhysics is in everything around us. It is in us driving a car, walking down the street, and pushing a child on a swing. Physics is also in every sport you have ever played, or watched someone play. It is involved in a baseball player swinging his bat, or a swimmer cutting through the water. It is also in golf. In this paper I will discuss three different ways that physics plays a role in the game of golf. The first is the motion of hitting the ball, or the swing, the sec ond is the spin of the ballRead MoreNewton On The Tee : A Good Walk Through The Science Of Golf Essay1273 Words   |  6 PagesThrough the Science of Golf In â€Å"Newton on the Tee†, John Zumerchik describes the â€Å"endless details that make golf such a tantalizing pursuit† in three main parts called; â€Å"The Physics of a Sweet Swing†, â€Å"Mind Over Muscle†, and â€Å"Getting the Ball from Here to There† (Zumerchik). The first section covers timing and positioning of a swing, the second discusses the movement and speed, and finally, the third discusses launch angles, spin, lift, and effects of gravity upon the ball. However, as the titleRead More Physics in Sports Essay1462 Words   |  6 PagesPhysics in Sports nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;When many people think of sports, the topic of physics doesnt always come to mind. They usually dont think about connecting athletics with academics. In reality math, science, and especially physics, tie into every aspect of sports. Sports are a commonality that brings nations together, Soccer, known as football to most of the world, is said to an unspoken language, which unties people from different lands through a passion to play a game. AthleticsRead MorePhysics of Basketball640 Words   |  3 PagesPhysics takes part in our everyday lives without us even recognizing it. In simple every day functions like when we walk, how our vehicles function properly, and even how we play sports. We go on each day with no recognition of physics until it is pointed out to us. The concept of physics is the study of fundamental structures and interactions in the physical universe. We learn physics to get a better understanding of the universe and the objects in it (Ostdie k). Now, that I have given you a briefRead MoreArchimedes Principle1427 Words   |  6 Pagesdensities and use the principle to determine the density of a golf ball. The weight of rubber stopper and the wood cube were measured in the air by using the force sensor. When the objects were submerged in the water, the apparent weight of the objects was measure with the force sensor and the volume of the displaced water were measure with a graduated cylinder. These same procedure was used to obtain weight and apparent weight of the golf ball. The weight of the displaced water when the rubber stopperRead More Physics of the Golf Drive Essay1752 Words   |  8 PagesThis paper examines the physics involved in driving a golf ball off the tee. The objective of a drive is to achieve the greatest distance while leaving the golf ball in the middle of the fairway. Several factors will be considered in achieving the longest, and most accurate drive. The factors include calculating the veloci ty of the golf ball after the club and ball collide, the mass of the club head, launch angle, the shape of the club face, and finding the optimal golf ball. Intuition tellsRead More Physics of Golf Essay3710 Words   |  15 PagesMany golf equipment companies are constantly trying to improve the different â€Å"tools† used during the game. And with the incredible rate of technology, golf equipment is constantly being taken to higher and higher levels. In fact, technology now allows golf equipment so precise and accurate, that many people believe it requires less skill to be a really exceptional golfer. As technology and the study of physics progresses, only newer and better equipment will be produced. This is why a lineRead MoreThe Physics of Golf Essay3575 Words   |  15 PagesThe Physics of Golf As anyone who has played a round of golf will attest to, the sport is based around many fundamental principals of physics. These basic laws are involved with every aspect of the game from how a player swings the club to how the ball moves through the air on its way toward the pin. It is the challenge that physics presents to the golfer that has allowed the game, and equipment used, to develop so drastically over the past one hundred years. The first golf balls used were calledRead MorePhysics Of Kicking A Soccer Ball1353 Words   |  6 Pages The Physics of Kicking a Soccer Ball Alexander Trifu Physics 1000 Professor Terry Arnio Friday, February 19, 2016 Introduction Soccer is the most prominent game on the planet. Soccer players all work hard to stay as fit as possible and constantly train to enhance their skill. A large portion of players don t consider the scientific concept of this amazing sport and the soccer ball itself. I inquired about the material science of soccer and found some exceptionally fascinating

Birthmark Essay Example For Students

Birthmark Essay In The Birthmark, Hawthorne described a young scientist who killed his own wife by pursuing perfect future Hawthorne, 220 while trying to remove a birthmark on his wife?s face. His name was Aylmer. He was a good scientist according to any standard. He was smart, diligent, and an eminent proficient Hawthorne, 203 in natural science. Hawthorne was not against science; he was against perfect science, against the people who wanted a perfect science. Aylmer was so devoted to science that his marriage with Georgiana, his wife, was intertwined with his love of science. Hawthorne, 203 A man loved science even more than his love of his own wife, no wonder he would sacrifice her life just for a perfect look on her face. Hawthorne was telling a truth, that a man has to be a good human first before he can be a good scientist. In the story, Hawthorne gradually set out the idea that Nature is equal to everyone; there is no perfection in the nature. As he said, Nature, in one shape or another, stamps ineffaceably on all her productions. Hawthorne, 205 Georgiana was a pretty lady; Nature has to bear a birthmark on her face in order to keep the balance, any attempt to remove it should and would result in disaster ? that leaded us to another conclusion ? Nature can not be changed or altered, or a punishment will come in someday. Interestingly, Hawthorne?s idea about dream is very scientific, Truth often finds its way to the mind close muffled in robes of sleep, and then speaks with uncompromising directness of matters in regard to which we practice an unconscious self-deception during our waking moments. Hawthorne, 207 This disclosed that Hawthorne himself was a good philosopher and scientist, which gave more credentials to this article. Sometimes, people concentrate too much on what science can do and how important science is in our lives. They developed a false trust in science. Aylmer thought he was competent to remove the birthmark, I feel myself fully competent to render this dear cheek as faultless as its fellow; and the, most beloved, what will be my triumph when I shall have corrected what Nature left imperfect in her fairest work! Hawthorne, 207 Also, Aylmer appeared to believe that, by the plainest scientific logic, it was altogether within the limits of possibility to discover this long-sought medium. Hawthorne, 211 But science can never solve all the problems, nor can human develop such a science.

Torts Case of Remoteness Essay Example

Torts Case of Remoteness Paper Overseas Tankship (U. K. ) Limited v. The Miller Steamship Co. Pty. Limited and another (Wagon Mound No 2), Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales, 1966 There are extracts from this case at p. 80 of Weinrib and then a summary of the result of this case at p 183. The case has some important passages beyond what appear in the p. 80 extract. Please add the following to your reading: LORD REID, LORD MORRIS OF BORTH-Y-GEST, LORD PEARCE, LORD WILBERFORCE, LORD PEARSON [Delivered by LORD REID] This is an appeal from a judgment of Walsh J. ated 10th October 1963 in the Supreme Court of New South V/ales in commercial cases by which he awarded to the respondents sums of ? 80,000 and ? 1,000 in respect of damage from fire sustained by their vessels . Corrimal and Audrey D on 1st November 1951. These vessels were then at Sheerlegs Wharf, Morts Bay, in Sydney Harbour undergoing repairs. The appellant was charterer by demise of a vessel. the Wa gon Mound, which in the early hours of 30th October 1951 had been taking in bunkering oil from Caltex Wharf not far from Sheerlegs Wharf. By reason of carelessness of the Wagon Mound engineers a large quantity of this oil overflowed from the Wagon Mound on to the surface of the water. Some hours later much of the oil had drifted to and accumulated round Sheerlegs Wharf and the respondents vessels. About 2 p. m. on 1st November this oil was set alight: the fire spread rapidly and caused extensive damage to the Wharf and to the respondents vessels, An action was raised against the present appellant by the owners of Sheerlegs Wharf on the ground of negligence. On appeal to the Board it was held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover on the ground that it was not foreseeable that such oil on the surface of the water could be set alight (Overseas Tankship (U. K. ) Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co. [1961] A. C. 388). Their Lordships will refer to this case as the Wagon Mound No. I. †¦ Walsh J. had found in their favour in nuisance but against them [the plaintiff shipowners] in negligence. †¦Their Lordships are indebted to that learned judge for the full and careful survey of the evidence which is set out in his judgment ([1963] 1 Lloyds Rep. 02). Few of his findings of fact have been attacked, and their Lordships do not find it necessary to set out or deal with the evidence at any length. But it is desirable to give some explanation of how the fire started before setting out the learned judges findings. In the course of repairing the respondents vessels the Morts Dock Co. , the owners of Sheerlegs Wharf, were carrying out oxy-acetylene welding and cutting. This work was apt to cause pieces or drops of hot metal to fly off and fall in the sea. We will write a custom essay sample on Torts Case of Remoteness specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Torts Case of Remoteness specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Torts Case of Remoteness specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer So when their manager arrived on the morning of 30th October and saw the thick scum of oil round the Wharf he was apprehensive of fire danger and he stopped the work while he took advice. He consulted the manager of Caltex Wharf and after some further consultation he was assured that he was safe to proceed: so he did so, and the repair work was carried on normally until the fire broke out on 1st November. Oil of this character with a flash point of 170op. is extremely difficult to ignite in the open. But we now know that that is not impossible. There is no certainty about how this oil was set alight, but the most probable explanation, accepted by Walsh J. , is that there was floating in the oil-covered water some object supporting a piece of inflammable material, and that a hot piece of metal fell on it†¢ when it burned for a sufficient time to ignite the surrounding oil. The findings of the learned trial judge [i. e. in this case – Wagon Mound No 2] are as follows:- (l) Reasonable people in the position of the officers of the Wagon Mound would regard furnace oil as very difficult to ignite upon water. 2) Their personal experience would probably have been that this had very rarely happened. (3) If they had given attention to the risk of fire from the spillage, they would have regarded it as a possibility, but one which could become an actuality only in very exceptional circumstances. (4) They would have considered the chances of the required exceptional circumstances happening whilst the oil remained spread on the harbour waters, as being remote. (5) I find that the occurrence of damage to the plaintiffs property as a result of the spillage, was not reasonably foreseeable by those for whose acts the defendant would be responsible. 6) I find that the spillage of oil was brought about by the careless conduct of persons for whose acts the defendant would be responsible. (7) I find that the spillage of oil was a cause of damage to the property of each of the plaintiffs. (8) Having regard to those findings, and because of finding (5), I hold that the claim of each of the plaintiffs, framed in negligence, fails. †¦. Of the large number of cases cited in argument †¦based purely on negligence, †¦[t]heir Lordships do not intend to examine these cases in detail. It has now been established by the Wagon Mound No. 1 and by Hughes v. Lord Advocate [1963] A. C. 837 that in such cases damages can only be recovered if the injury complained of was not only caused by the alleged negligence but was also an injury of a class or character foreseeable as a possible result of it. †¦In their Lordships judgment the cases point strongly to there being no difference as to the measure of damages between nuisance and negligence but they are not conclusive. So it is desirable to consider the question of principle. NOTE from CS: The reason for this comparison is that the case was also argued in nuisance and the trial judge found there to be liability in nuisance on the basis that nuisance requires only the natural/direct consequence test whereas Wagon Mound No 1 had changed the law of negligence to require the reasonable foreseeability test. So the House of Lords in Wagon Mound No 2 were looking at both the application of the reasonable foreseeability test for negligence to the negligence claim in Wagon Mound 2 and at whether that same test should be the test for remoteness of damage in nuisance. We are not concerned with the nuisance law aspects, but only with the reasoning that discusses what reasonable foreseeability means in general and in particular in the negligence context. ] †¦Comparing nuisance with negligence the main argument for the respondent was that in negligence foreseeability is an essential element in determining liability and therefore it is logical that foreseeability should also be an essential element in determining the amount of damages: but negligence is not an essential element in determining liability for nuisance and therefore it is illogical to bring in foreseeability when determining the amount of damages. It is quite true that negligence is not an essential element in nuisance. Nuisance is a term used to cover a wide variety of tortious acts or omissions and in many negligence in the narrow sense is not essential. An occupier may incur liability for the emission of noxious fumes or noise although he has used the utmost care in building and using his premises. The amount of fumes or noise which he can lawfully emit is a question of degree and he or his advisers may have miscalculated what can be justified. Or he ay deliberately obstruct the highway adjoining his premises to a greater degree than is permissible hoping that no one will object. On the other hand the emission of fumes or noise or the obstruction of the adjoining highway may often be the result of pure negligence on his part: there are many cases (e. g. , Dollman v. Hillman [1941] 1. All E. R. 355) where precisely the same facts will establish liability both in nuisance and in negligence. And although negligence may not be necessary, fault of some kind is almost always necessary and fault generally involves foreseeability, e. . , in cases like Sedleigh-Denfield v. OCallaghan [1940] A. C. 880 the fault is in failing to abate a nuisance of the existence of which the defender is or ought to be aware as likely to cause damage to his neighbour. †¦ [Note from CS: in this paragraph, the Lords find that reasonable foreseeability is also the remoteness test in nuisance. It is retained in this edit so that you can follow the flow of the case, but, again, you are not responsible for nuisance law for the exam problem. It could not be right to discriminate between different cases of nuisance so as to make foreseeability a necessary element in determining damages in those cases where it is a necessary element in determining liability, but not in others. So the choice is between it being a necessary element in all cases of nuisance or in none. In their Lordships judgment the similarities between nuisance and ot her forms of tort to which the Wagon Mound No. 1 applies far outweigh any differences, and they must therefore hold that the judgment appealed from is wrong on this branch of the case. It is not sufficient that the injury suffered by the respondents vessels was the direct result of the nuisance if that injury was in the relevant sense unforeseeable. It is now necessary to turn to the respondents submission that the trial Judge was wrong in holding that damage from fire was not reasonably foreseeable. In Wagon Mound No. 1 the finding on which the Board proceeded was that of the trial Judge: the defendant did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known that [the oil] was capable of being set afire when spread on water. In the present case the evidence led was substantially different from the evidence led in Wagon Mound No. 1 and the findings of Walsh J. are significantly different. That is not due to there having been any failure by the plaintiffs in Wagon Mound No. 1 in preparing and presenting their case. The plaintiffs there were no doubt embarrassed by a difficulty which does not affect the present plaintiffs. The outbreak of the fire was consequent on the act of the manager of the plaintiffs in Wagon Mound No. 1 in resuming oxy-acetylene welding and cutting while the wharf was surrounded by this oil. So if the plaintiffs in the former case had set out to prove that it was foreseeable by the engineers of the Wagon Mound that this oil could be set alight, they might have had difficulty in parrying the reply that this must also have been foreseeable by their manager. Then there would have been contributory negligence and at that time contributory negligence was a complete defence in New South Wales. The crucial finding of Walsh J. in this case is in finding 5: that the damage was not reasonably foreseeable by those for whose acts the defendant would be responsible. That is not a primary finding of fact but an inference from the other findings, †¦The vital parts of the findings of fact which have already been set out in full are (1) that the officers of the Wagon Mound would regard furnace oil as very difficult to ignite upon water - not that they would regard this as impossible: (2) that their experience would probably have been that this had very rarely happened -not that they would never have heard of a case where it had happened, and (3) that they would have regarded it as a possibility, but one which could become an actuality only in very exceptional circumstances - not, as in Wagon Mound No. , that they could not reasonably be expected to have known that this oil was capable of being set afire when spread on water. The question which must now be determined is whether these differences between the findings in the two cases do or do not lead to different results in law. In Wagon Mound No. 1 the Board were not concerned with degrees of f oreseeability because the finding was that the fire was not foreseeable at all. So Lord Simonds had no cause to amplify the statement that the essential factor in determining liability is whether the damage is of such a kind as the reasonable man should have foreseen (at p. 426). But here the findings show that some risk of fire would have been present to the mind of a reasonable man in the shoes of the ships chief engineer. So the first question must be what is the precise meaning to be attached in this context to the words foreseeable and reasonably foreseeable. [Note from CS: This is where Weinrib’s extract starts at p 80 in his book. Before Bolton v. Stone [1951] A. C. 850 the cases had fallen into two classes: (1) those where, before the event, the risk of its happening would have been regarded as unreal either because the event would have been thought to be physically impossible or because the possibility of its happening would have been regarded as so fantastic or farfetched that no reasonable man would have paid any attention to it -a mere possibi lity which would never occur to the mind of a reasonable man (per Lord Dunedin in Fardon v. Harcourt-Rivington [1932] 146 L. T. 391) or (2) those where there was a real and substantial risk or chance that something like the event which happens might occur, and then the reasonable man would have taken the steps necessary to eliminate the risk. Bolton v. Stone posed a new problem. There a member of a visiting team drove a cricket ball out of the ground onto an unfrequented adjacent public road and it struck and severely injured a lady who happened to be standing in the road. That it might happen that a ball would be driven on to this road could not have been said to be a fantastic or far-fetched possibility: according to the evidence it had happened about six times in 28 years. And it could not have been said to be a far-fetched or fantastic possibility that such a ball would strike someone in the road: people did pass along the road from time to time. So it could not have been said that, on any ordinary meaning of the words, the fact that a ball might strike a person in the road was not foreseeable or reasonably foreseeable it was plainly foreseeable. But the chance of its happening in the foreseeable future was infinitesimal. A mathematician given the data could have worked out that it was only likely to happen once in so many thousand years. The House of Lords held that the risk was so small that in the circumstances a reasonable man would have been justified in disregarding it and taking no steps to eliminate it. But it does not follow that, no matter what the circumstances may be, it is justifiable to neglect a risk of such a small magnitude. A reasonable man would only neglect such a risk if he had some valid reason for doing so: e. g. that it would involve considerable expense to eliminate the risk, He would weigh the risk against the difficulty of eliminating it. If the activity which caused the injury to Miss Stone had been an unlawful activity there can be little doubt but that Bolton v. Stone would have been decided differently. In their Lordships judgment Bolton v. Stone did not alter the general principle that a person must be regarded as negligent if he does not take steps to eliminate a risk which he knows or ought to know is a real risk and not a mere possibility which would never influence the mind of a reasonable man. What that decision did was to recognise and give effect to the qualification that it is justifiable not to take steps to eliminate a real risk if it is small and if the circumstances are such that a reasonable man, careful of the safety of his neighbour, would think it right to neglect it. In the present case there was no justification whatever for discharging the oil into Sydney Harbour. Not only was it an offence to do so but it involved considerable loss financially. If the ships engineer had thought about the matter there could have been no question of balancing the advantages and disadvantages. From every point of view it was both his duty and his interest to stop the discharge immediately. It follows that in their Lordships view the only question is whether a reasonable man having the knowledge and experience to be expected of the chief engineer of the Wagon Mound would have known that there was a real risk of the oil on the water catching fire in some way: if it did, serious damage to ships or other property was not only foreseeable but very likely. Their Lordships do not dissent from the view of the trial Judge that the possibilities of damage must be significant enough in a practical sense to require a reasonable man to guard against them but they think that he may have misdirected himself in saying there does seem to be a real practical difficulty, assuming that some risk of fire damage was foreseeable, but not a high one, in making a factual judgment as to whether this risk was sufficient to attract liability if damage should occur. In this difficult chapter of the law decisions are not infrequently taken to apply to circumstances far removed from the facts which gave rise to them and it would seem that here too much reliance has been placed on some observations in Bolton v. Stone and similar observations in other cases. In their Lordships view a properly qualified and alert chief engineer would have realised there was a real risk here and they do not understand Walsh J. to deny that. But he appears to have held that if a real risk can properly be described as remote it must then be held to be not reasonably foreseeable. That is a possible interpretation of some of the authorities. But this is still an open question and on principle their Lordships cannot accept this view. If a real risk is one which†¢ would occur to the mind of a reasonable man in the position of the defendants servant and which he would not brush aside as far-fetched and if the criterion is to be what that reasonable man would have done in the circumstances, then surely he would not neglect such a risk if action to eliminate it presented no difficulty, involved no disadvantage, and required no expense. In the present case the evidence shows that the discharge of so much oil on to the water must have taken a considerable time, and a vigilant ships engineer would have noticed the discharge at an early stage. The findings show that he ought to have known that it is possible to ignite this kind of oil on water. and that the ships engineer probably ought to have known that this had in fact happened before. The most that can be said to justify inaction is that he would have known that this could only happen in very exceptional circumstances. But that does not mean that a reasonable man would dismiss such a risk from his mind and do nothing when it was so easy to prevent it. If it is clear that the reasonable man would have realised or foreseen and prevented the risk then it must follow that the appellants are liable in damages. The learned Judge found this a difficult case: he says that this matter is one upon which different minds would come to different conclusions. Taking a rather different view of the law from that of the learned Judge, their Lordships must hold that the respondents are entitled to succeed on this issue. †¦