Prosser, pp. This case was a source of dispute for the next forty years and was finally overruled in 1961. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. App., 3 K.B. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. Whether the charterer’s negligence was a proximate cause of the fire. No. Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. (Australia 1921) Posted on November 18, 2016 | Torts | Tags: Procedural History: The owners of a ship sought to recover damages from defendants who chartered the ship. 154; 37 T.L.R. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd.Privy Council 1961, A.C. 388 (1961) Duty Of Care Owners And Occupiers Of Land Wrongful Death And Survival Strict Liability Furness hired stevedores to help unload the ship, and one of them knocked down a plank which created a spark, ignited the gas, and burnt the entire ship down. In the present case, the act of knocking down the planks is clearly negligent, since some damage could be expected to happen from the act. A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email 28 ——– Page No. In re Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd, 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. Held. 1353; 126 L.T. (Scrutton, L.J.) If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. While discharging cargo from a ship, a wooden plank fell causing a spark to ignite the petrol the ship carried. The arbitrators agreed with the charterers that the spark was an unforeseen consequence of the original negligence and therefore the destruction of the vessel was a remote consequence. 3 K.B. Overseas Tankship [UK] Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. [The Wagon Mound] (1961) 1 All ER 404 126 31. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. (Bankes, L.J.) Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. Issue. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. 398; [1921] All E.R.Rep. Issue. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. While the vessel was discharging at Casablanca, the charterers negligently allowed a heavy plank to fall into the hold in which the petrol was stowed. You also agree to abide by our. Written and curated by real The finding that the spark was too remote to confer liability on the charterers was based on the contention of the charterers that the fire was an unforeseen consequence of the falling wooden plank. address. In this case, the rule is on the lines of Christianson v. Chicago, St. P., M.G.O.Ry. If a negligent act X can be reasonably foreseen to terminate in Y, but instead causes Z to happen, the doer of X is liable for damages arising from Z though the scale of Z is not at all in accordance with X. 3 K.B. Vandall 4th Torts Register to get FREE access to 13,000+ casebriefs Register Now This rule was espoused by the courts in the case of Re Polemis and Furness Withy & Co (1921) All ER 40 which is popularly known as Re Polemis. Torts • Add Comment-8″?> faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. The decision is considered to be absurd by Prosser, among others, since the damages are out of proportion to the negligence involved. A panel of arbitrators found in favor of Polemis, holding that the defendants' negligence caused the accident, and that although the explosion was not foreseeable, some damage was. The act in question can be directly traced to the resulting damage, and whether the damage anticipated was the damage which actually happened is insignificant in view of there being no other independent cause contributing to the damage. Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, Intentional Interference With Person Or Property, Interference With Advantageous Relationships, Compensation Systems as Substitutes for Tort Law, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. "Wagon Mound No. This being so, the fact remains that some damage is anticipated, and the damage which occurred not being the exact kind reasonably expected is not material. This is a minority rule in the U.S. If reasonably foreseen that an act may cause harm, tortfeasor is liable for damages, regardless of whether type and extent of damages are reasonably foreseeable. 2 In re An Arbitration between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy and Co.. [1921] 3 K.B. 266 (1997), United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. In this case, the fire was a direct result of the negligent act and therefore the charterers are liable for the fire. Please check your email and confirm your registration. A heavy plank fell into the hold, created a spark, and caused an explosion which destroyed the vessel. 940; 27 Com.Cas. 560, [1921] All E.R. 560, [1921] All E.R. 25; 15 Asp.M.L.C. 295-296 Facts: The plaintiffs’ boat was destroyed and … Get In re Arbitration Between: Trans Chemical Limited & China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation, 978 F. Supp. RE AN ARBITRATION between POLEMIS and FURNESS, WITHY & co. Court of Appeal [1921] 3 K.B. THE RULE OF REASONABLE FORSEEABILITY. The claimants were the owners of the Greek steamship Thrusyboiilos and the respondents, Furness Withy & Co., were time charterers. [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. In this case, charterers employed stevedores to unload a ship. How did this case get to arbitration? Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. 1", Overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. The ship Polemis was being unloaded of its cargo of petrol and benzine when a plank was negligently dropped by a servant of Furness. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. That damage that might result when a wooden plank falls while discharging cargo is a foreseeable consequence of the negligence, whatever that damage might be. In re Arbitration between Polemis and Furness Case Brief. Synopsis of Rule of Law. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. An Overview of the Rule of Reasonable Forseeability. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. Polemis sued the defendants for the damages. In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 3 K.B. The arbitors were correct. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. In Re An Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) All ER Rep. 40 124 30. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Re POLEMIS Re POLEMIS Wright, 1951-10-01 00:00:00 Volume 14 October 1951 No. [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. Tag: Re Polemis and Furness Withy & Co. Posted on March 24, 2016 Written By Olanrewaju Olamide. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. Facts. Direct causation – In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd. 3 See Hay or Bourhill v. 2", Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & R.R. [1921]. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG. In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd, 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. BETWEEN C. A. POLEMIS and L. BOYAZIDES (Owners of the s.s. 'THRASYVOULOS') and FURNESS WITHY … In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Ferness, Withy & Co. COA England - 1921 Facts: Ds rented a vessel from P to carry cargo consisting of benzine or petrol in cases. 560). When the plank landed, it created a spark that caused an explosion and subsequent fire, destroying the ship. Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. When a negligent act directly causes damage, the fact that the kind of damage caused was unexpected is irrelevant, since there is no independent cause which intervenes between the damage and the act. Unknown to the stevedores, there was a leakage of petrol in the hold of the ship and thus there was inflammable vapour. Attorneys Wanted. "In Re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. ", 3 K.B. 40. 560 (C.A. Discussion. ), [hereinafter cited as Re Polemis]. Hughes v. Lord Advocate (1963) AC 837 130 32. Brief Fact Summary. THE CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL This Polemis Business IN ARBITRATION. While engaged on the service she was in Casablanca … Strict liability-Wikipedia. 560 (1921) Overseas Tankship, (UK.) The only reason is that X is the nearest cause to Z and so is the ground for liability. Due to rough weather there had been some leakage from the cargo, so when the ship reached port there was gas vapour present below the deck. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The rule is wooden. 114 indiankanoon.org link casemine.com link legitquest.com link This was a dispute between the charterers and owners … Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. The rule of reasonable forseeability means that a defendant would only be liable for damages which are a direct and foreseeable result from his actions. The plank caused an explosion, which set fire to … In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921. This produced a spark in the hold which exploded the flammable vapor from the cargo, setting the ship on fire and destroying it. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. 560. The actual anticipations of the negligent party are irrelevant when considering whether the resulting damage is remote. Ps sued D in negligence for the cost of the vessel. You also agree to abide by our. In Re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) 3 KB 560 : (1921) All ER Rep. 40 Sl. 40. •Suicide: Emotional Distress: (28p) 4 In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness – move benzene /w sling shot (28p) (All Consequence Rule) This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. Brief Fact Summary. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. It has the beneficial effect of simplifying and thereby expediting court decisions in these cases, although the application of strict liability may seem unfair or harsh, as in Re Polemis. It is enough that damage occurred, and the damage which occurred can be traced back in direct fashion to the negligent act, without any intervening or contributory independent causes being connected with it. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be held liable for all consequences flowing from the wrongful conduct regardless of how unforeseeable. address. The extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable. Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, Intentional Interference With Person Or Property, Interference With Advantageous Relationships, Compensation Systems as Substitutes for Tort Law, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc, Michie v. Great Lakes Steel Division, Nat'l Steel Corp. Overseas Tankship, (UK.) Re Polemis.3 came before the court on an award in the form of a special case. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. Held. 640 (1896). 4 I HAVE felt a personal interest in this case for the last thirty years, since I argued it unsuccessfully before a Court of Appeal of great eminence which wisely rejected the contentions I advanced with the support of my then junior counsel (now Lord Porter). Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. Tel: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david@swarb.co.uk If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. 560 is a famous United Kingdom tort case on causation and remoteness. Sentences for Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be deemed liable for all consequences flowing from his negligent conduct regardless of how unforeseeable such consequences are. Before this decision in The Wagon Mound No.1 defendants were held responsible to compensate for all the direct consequences of their negligence, a rule clarified by the decision in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. The exact way in which damage or injury results need not be foreseen for liability to attach, the fact that the negligent act caused the result is enough. In re Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., LtdCt. The resulting fire destroyed the ship. -In almost all cases, courts treat the proximate cause as a question of fact for the jury. CASE BRIEF WORKSHEET Title of Case: In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd., C of A 1921 Facts (relevant; if any changed, the holding would be affected; used by the court to make its decision; what happened before the lawsuit was filed): the respondents chartered their vessel to the appellants. 40 Claim by owners against charterers in respect of destruction of ship This was a dispute between the charterers and owners of a ship which was 560; 90 L.J.K.B. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. (Australia 1921) Posted on November 18, 2016 | Torts | Tags: Procedural History: The owners of a ship sought to recover damages from defendants who chartered the ship. The case was referred to arbitration and the arbitrators found that the fire was caused when the wooden plank hit metal and caused a spark. Co.,69 N.W. The fire was a foreseeable consequence of the negligence. Wagon Mound (No. In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co.. Facts: A ship carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and destroyed. This was the initial view of the courts regarding actual causation. Even if the spark was not a reasonably anticipated consequence of the dropping of the plank, the act itself was negligent. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. IN RE AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN POLEMIS AND FURNESS, WITHY & CO., LTD. The case is an example of strict liability, a concept which has generally fallen out of favour with the common law … [1921]. No. Co. Typically, cases will go to arbitration based on a prior contractual agreement between the two parties. Were the costs expected to be recovered due to damage non-recoverable due to the effect being too remote from the cause? The unexpectedness of the spark and resulting explosion is irrelevant to the issue of negligence. Definition of Polemis V. Fur-ness, Withy, Re ([1921] 3 K. . Discussion. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921. Please check your email and confirm your registration. In re Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, With, and Co., Ltd. (Direct Cause Rule) it matters not that the damages was unforeseen as long as it is traceable back to the act and no intervening causes occurred-foreseeability rule would limit liability to those damages reasonably foreseeable from the act. Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. 2. If by reason of negligence a cause of action arises, the defendants are liable for all the direct consequences of such negligence, even though such consequences could not reasonably have been anticipated.