(...) in Wagon Mound II, (...) the action was for damage to ships docked at a wharf. (...) there was evidence justifying the conclusion that the defendants [defendant] were, o should have been, aware that there was some slight risk that the oil on the water would be ignited, although it was very unlikely. It was held that since the conduct of the defendants had no justification or social value, they were not justified in neglegcting even that slight risk, and they were therefore liable [liable, to be]. The decision would appear to have adopted the American formula of balancing magnitude of risk and gravity of harm against utility of conduct, and to have applied it to foreseeability in relation to "proximate cause".