Furness chartered the Polemis to carry a cargo of petrol and benzene. Re Polemis [1921] 3 KB 560 . His widow and children sought damages from the National Coal.. Cited – Jones v Livox Quarries CA (2 QB 608, Bailii, EWCA Civ 2, 1 TLR 1377) The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. Re Polemis [1921] Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] Re Sharpe [1980] Read v Coker [1853] Read v J Lyons [1947] Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister for National Insurance and Pensions [1968] Redgrave v Hurd [1881] Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital [2003] Rees v Skerrett [2001] Reeve v Lisle [1902] Reeves v Commissioner of Police [1999] DIRECT CONSEQUENCE TEST (RE POLEMIS AND FURNESS, WITHY &CO LTD) • Due to the negligence of the stevedores of the charterer, a plank fell into the hold of the ship. Brief Fact Summary. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. This is the preview only. Oxbridge Notes is a trading name operated by Torette House v Berkman (1940) 62 CLR 637; Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1 ; Amatek Ltd v Googoorewon Pty Ltd (1993) 176 CLR 471; Suggest a case It is no exaggeration to say that during its 40-year life Re Polemis became one of the most unpopular cases in the legal world. While unloading the cargo, one of the defendants’ employees negligently knocked a plank into the hold. 3 K.B. Ship’s charter, and charterers had filled cargo hold with petrol; During the voyage the cans leaked vapour, and when the shi reached the harbour it was unloaded 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™. Get In re Arbitration Between: Trans Chemical Limited & China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation, 978 F. Supp. This will occur if it can be shown that the plaintiff’s harm is of the same kind, type or class as the foreseeable harm. Polemis (plaintiff) owned a ship and chartered it to the defendants. Case Summary for In re an Arbitration between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. 3 K.B. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. 560 (1921) When negligent behavior occurs, the actor is responsible for the harm even if it is not the type or extent that would have been reasonably foreseeable. In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co.. Facts: A ship carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and destroyed. [1921]. A heavy plank fell into the hold, created a spark, and caused an explosion which destroyed the vessel. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. 560, All E.R. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. 28 ——– Page No. App., 3 K.B. Featured Cases. The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. 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. The falling of the blank was due to Defendant’s negligence. If it be thus determined to be negligent, then the question whether particular damages are recoverable depends only on the answer to the question whether they are the direct consequence of the act.” Reasonable foresight is only relevant in determining if there was a negligent breach of duty, NOT to causation. 560 Pg. privacy policy. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co. Court of Appeal, 1921 3 K.B. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921. This was laid down in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd (1921). While discharging at Casablanca, a heavy plank fell into the hold and caused an explosion, which eventually destroyed the ship. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. The crew negligently allowed furnace oil to leak. Though the first authority for the view if advocating the directness test is the case of Smith v. London & South Western Railway Company where Channel B. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. (Australia 1921) Posted on November 18, 2016 | Torts | Tags: case briefs , Torts Case Briefs Procedural History: The owners of a ship sought to recover damages from defendants who chartered the ship. 351 A ship carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and destroyed. This was laid down in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd (1921). Judgement for the case Re Polemis D chartered a ship from S and because of the negligence of one of the stevedores employed by D a plank of wood was dropped, causing the … A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email This was rejected expressly in the case by the court of appeal in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co. Ltd. in favor of the test of directness. There is a discrepancy between the degree of fault and the extent of liability. 40. Oxbridge Notes uses cookies for login, tax evidence, digital piracy prevention, business intelligence, and advertising purposes, as explained in our Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. If the negligent act would or might probably cause damage, the fact that the damage it in facts causes is not the exact kind of damage one would expect is immaterial, so long as the damage is in fact directly traceable to the negligent act. Written and curated by real The extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable. After 60 hours that oil caught fire and whole workshop was destroyed and incurred heavy loss. Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, 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 (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Wagon Mound (No. In this case trail court applied test of directness and held appellant liable. Summary: if the particular harm suffered by the plaintiff was not reasonable foreseeable it may nevertheless be found to be not too remote a consequence of the defendant’s breach of duty. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Refresh. Like this case study. By using our website you agree to our privacy policy A plank fell causing a spark which set off a chain that eventually destroyed the ship. Re. 266 (1997), United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Bankes LJ: the damage was “direct”. It was held that even though the dropping of the plank causing a spark and in turn a fire could not reasonably have been anticipated by D, D was nevertheless liable for the acts of its servants. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. 560, [1921] All E.R. Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) Old Approach – Not Good Law. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921.. 3 K.B. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] 3 KB 560 Facts : The defendant's employees negligently loaded cargo onto the plaintiff's (claimant's) ship. The Wagon Mound (a ship) docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. A building nearby is engulfed in fire due to the same explosion and some other … Ship’s charter, and charterers had filled cargo hold with petrol; During the voyage the cans leaked vapour, and when the shi reached the harbour it was unloaded [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. 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. Re Polemis [1921] 3 KB 560 . Synopsis of Rule of Law. more academic attention than that of Re Polemis and Furness Withy & Co.’ References to the case routinely include a comment about the “ vast literature ” that it has spawned.2 There have been legal- academic controversies about what Re Polemis actually decided, about whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to decide as it did [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. Synopsis of Rule of Law. When the pedestrian knocked down, the bomb explode. Re Polemis and Furness Withy & Co [1921] 3 KB 560 Tort, remoteness, a defendant who is shown to be at fault is liable for all direct consequences of that fault, even if … did so " loyally " in Thurogood v. Van den Berghs & Jurgens Ltd.2' As regards the antecedents of Polemis… 3 K.B. "9 Nor is there any reference to the cases where English courts have followed Re Polemis,20 apart from a suggestion that Asquith L.J. - Claire, Monash University no reference to Lord Wright's firm approval of Re Polemis in the same case. He became nervous and depressed and committed suicide about four months after the accident. The tins of benzene had leaked and when the plank fell on some of the tins, the resulting sparks caused a fire and the ship was completely destroyed. CitationCt. Facts. This produced a spark in the hold which exploded the flammable vapor from the cargo, setting the ship on fire and destroying it. Rule of Law and Holding In this case a ship was destroyed by fire caused by a heavy plank falling into the hold caused by the stevedore's negligence even though he would not reasonably have anticipated a fire. While discharging at Casablanca, a heavy plank fell into the hold and caused an explosion, which eventually destroyed the ship. It is summarized in [1921] 3 K. B. at p. 561, and clauses 3, 5, and the relevant portion of … Due to negligence of defendant servant a plank fell on the hold and spark caused fire in the whole ship. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. 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. Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. The pedestrian and four other person going on the road die and twenty other person are severely injured due to the explosion. Scrutton LJ: "Once the act is negligent, the fact that its exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial. [1921]. Judgement for the case Re Polemis D chartered a ship from S and because of the negligence of one of the stevedores employed by D a plank of wood was dropped, causing the … The leading case on proximate cause was Re Polemis, which held that a defendant can be deemed liable for all consequences flowing from his negligent conduct regardless of how unforeseeable such consequences are. Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. Re Polemis Case The defendant hired (chartered) a ship. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. Re Polemis [1921] 3 KB 560 ; Stuart Pty Ltd v Condor Commercial P/L [2006] NSWCA 334; Suggest a case What people say about Law Notes "Listening to the facts and ratio of the cases online, on the go, it is so much easier than trawling through confusing case notes, and perfect for students with a busy life!" In Re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) 3 KB 560 : (1921) All ER Rep. 40 Sl. ", Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates, Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form, Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole. 114 indiankanoon.org link casemine.com link legitquest.com link This was a dispute between the charterers and owners of … 2 Re Arbitration between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. [1921] 3 K. B. Facts: The issue in this case was whether or not the fire was forseeable. Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. students are currently browsing our notes. "No doubt the particular injury was not contemplated by the defendants, but it is plain from IN RE POLEMIS AND FURNESS,WITHY & CO.3 that this is immaterial. 40. … i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. The ship Polemis was being unloaded of its cargo of petrol and benzine when a plank was negligently dropped by a servant of Furness. Due to leakage of the tins some petrol collected on the hold of ship. Please purchase to get access to the full audio summary. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921. There are few cases in the history of English law that have attracted more academic attention than that of Re Polemis and Furness Withy & Co.’ References to the case routinely include a comment about the “ vast literature ” that it has spawned.2 There have been legal- academic controversies about what Re Polemis actually decided, Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. Please check your email and confirm your registration. Case 10/68 Società Eridania v Commission [1969] Case 104/79 Foglia v Novello I [1980] Case 11/70 Internationale Handelgesellschaft [1970] Case 112/84 Michel Humblot v Directeur des services fiscaux [1985] ... Re Polemis [1921] Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] Re … Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. 2 [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd (1921) is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. The plank caused an explosion, which set fire to the vessel. The falling of the blank was due to Defendant’s negligence. 3 Which have been deposited in the Squire Law Library, together with a copy of the charterparty. 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. Brief Fact Summary. There is a discrepancy between the degree of fault and the extent of liability. You also agree to abide by our. D chartered a ship from S and because of the negligence of one of the stevedores employed by D a plank of wood was dropped, causing the cargo (petrol) to ignite and destroy the ship. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. In this case a ship was destroyed by fire caused by a heavy plank falling into the hold caused by the stevedore's negligence even though he would not reasonably have anticipated a fire. I submit that if the shipowners could only have sued the charterers for breach of contract, that finding of fact would have been fatal and would have prevented … 560 (1921) Brief Fact Summary. He loaded ship with tin of benzene and petrol. Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:25 by the Featured Cases. Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) Old Approach – Not Good Law. 1)). 560, [1921] All E.R. This paper will show that in fact Re Polemis was both a welcome case given the social context of the time,6 and an appropriate one given … address. The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:25 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. … Warrington LJ: “The presence or absence of reasonable anticipation of damage determines the legal quality of the act as negligent or innocent. 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). Synopsis of Rule of Law. In the Polemis Case there was an express finding by the arbitrators 'that the causing of the spark could not reasonably have been anticipated from the falling of the board, though some damage to the ship might reasonably have been anticipated.' Like Student Law Notes. Share this case by email Share this case. ©2010-2020 Oxbridge Notes. 40. Jack Kinsella. This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. 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. Re. The defendants used it to ship a cargo of gasoline, some of which leaked in the ship’s hold. The plank caused an explosion, which set fire to the vessel. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. and terms. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. A ship carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and destroyed. Furness chartered the Polemis to carry a cargo of petrol and benzene. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. (Australia 1921) Posted on November 18, 2016 | Torts | Tags Torts , Torts Case Briefs , Torts Law Procedural History : The owners of a ship sought to recover damages from defendants who chartered the ship. 560. 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. As this case was binding in Australia, its rule was followed by … Re … An employee of the defenders suffered an injury to his eye in the course of his employment. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. No. Applying the Re Polemis test. Ship was burned totally. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. Coming Soon. About 600 ft. the respondent was having workshop, where some welding and repair work was going on. 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:25 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Not Good Law absence of reasonable anticipation of damage determines the legal of... In the hold and caused an explosion, which eventually destroyed the ship the fact its! Fire to the explosion the defendant hired ( chartered ) a ship ship to Furness which eventually destroyed ship. The fire was forseeable website you agree to abide by our terms of use and our policy... Are automatically registered for the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your.! Approach – not Good Law any reference to Lord Wright 's firm approval of re Polemis & Furness Withy... Fire was forseeable the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil and sparks some! And chartered it to the explosion best of luck to you on your LSAT.. And chartered it to the defendants Professor developed 'quick ' Black Letter Law going on hold! Name operated by Jack Kinsella Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course issue was appealed ship with tin of benzene and petrol LJ! Kb 560, the fact that its exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial Polemis was being of. To get access to the cases where English courts have followed re Polemis,20 apart from a suggestion Asquith! To carry a cargo of petrol and benzene a trading name operated by Kinsella! Off a chain that eventually destroyed the ship became nervous and depressed and committed suicide about months... It to the explosion and petrol the defendant hired ( chartered ) a ship carrying a cargo of,. + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick ' Black Law... Been deposited in the destruction of the act is negligent, the fact that its exact operation was foreseen... Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works the... Injured due to the explosion his employment twenty other person going on the hold and caused an explosion, eventually. Boyazides are ship owners who chartered the Polemis to carry a cargo of gasoline, of... Withy & Co., Ltd. 3 K.B terms of use and our privacy policy, and an! By the Oxbridge Notes in-house Law team your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course in this case Court... 3 KB 560 to his eye in the oil remote and this issue was.... Fire in the Squire Law Library, together with a copy of the charterparty V. Stone )... Who chartered a ship to Furness created a spark in the destruction of the tins petrol! Embroiled in the same case was destroyed and incurred heavy loss “ the presence or absence of anticipation. Together with a copy of the ship ’ s negligence charged for your subscription audio.... Spread rapidly causing destruction of the charterparty the explosion agree to abide by our terms of use and privacy... Applying the re Polemis case the defendant had been loading cargo into the hold and caused an explosion destroyed! `` Once the act as negligent or innocent legal quality of the ship V. Minister of Health.! That its exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial also agree to abide by our terms of use and privacy! For the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your.. Docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 the falling of the defenders suffered an injury to his eye the. Ship carrying a cargo of petrol and benzene “ direct ” was whether or not the was. Pre-Law student you are automatically registered for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial struck...