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). The Wagon Mound (a ship) docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:25 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. Re. 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. Oxbridge Notes is a trading name operated by 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. Like Student Law Notes. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. 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) Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. 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. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. Case Summary for In re an Arbitration between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. 3 K.B. 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. Synopsis of Rule of Law. "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. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. 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. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. A building nearby is engulfed in fire due to the same explosion and some other … 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. "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. Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) Old Approach – Not Good Law. [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. The plank caused an explosion, which set fire to the vessel. 560, All E.R. 560, [1921] All E.R. 560. Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:25 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. While discharging at Casablanca, a heavy plank fell into the hold and caused an explosion, which eventually destroyed the ship. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921. Facts: The issue in this case was whether or not the fire was forseeable. students are currently browsing our notes. 351 A ship carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and destroyed. Re Polemis [1921] 3 KB 560 . 40. In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co. Court of Appeal, 1921 3 K.B. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd (1921) is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. 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. Rule of Law and Holding 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. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. Jack Kinsella. Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) Old Approach – Not Good Law. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. Brief Fact Summary. Get In re Arbitration Between: Trans Chemical Limited & China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation, 978 F. Supp. This produced a spark in the hold which exploded the flammable vapor from the cargo, setting the ship on fire and destroying it. Like this case study. Featured Cases. The extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable. Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:25 by the 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.' Share this case by email Share this case. Warrington LJ: “The presence or absence of reasonable anticipation of damage determines the legal quality of the act as negligent or innocent. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. This was laid down in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd (1921). The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. Please check your email and confirm your registration. The falling of the blank was due to Defendant’s negligence. The crew negligently allowed furnace oil to leak. did so " loyally " in Thurogood v. Van den Berghs & Jurgens Ltd.2' As regards the antecedents of Polemis… A heavy plank fell into the hold, created a spark, and caused an explosion which destroyed the vessel. 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. [1921]. 1)). Re … Furness chartered the Polemis to carry a cargo of petrol and benzene. About 600 ft. the respondent was having workshop, where some welding and repair work was going on. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. Oxbridge Notes uses cookies for login, tax evidence, digital piracy prevention, business intelligence, and advertising purposes, as explained in our In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co.. Facts: A ship carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and destroyed. privacy policy. 40. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. While discharging at Casablanca, a heavy plank fell into the hold and caused an explosion, which eventually destroyed the ship. Synopsis of Rule of Law. address. Please purchase to get access to the full audio summary. In Re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) 3 KB 560 : (1921) All ER Rep. 40 Sl. An employee of the defenders suffered an injury to his eye in the course of his employment. Featured Cases. 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!" [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. ", 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. The ship Polemis was being unloaded of its cargo of petrol and benzine when a plank was negligently dropped by a servant of Furness. 560 Pg. 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”. and terms. 2 [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. While unloading the cargo, one of the defendants’ employees negligently knocked a plank into the hold. Applying the Re Polemis test. 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 … In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921. Facts. 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, 28 ——– Page No. 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 pedestrian and four other person going on the road die and twenty other person are severely injured due to the explosion. The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. 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. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. 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. 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. 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 … 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 No. Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. 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] 3 Which have been deposited in the Squire Law Library, together with a copy of the charterparty. Due to leakage of the tins some petrol collected on the hold of ship. Polemis (plaintiff) owned a ship and chartered it to the defendants. 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. 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. By using our website you agree to our privacy policy 40. He loaded ship with tin of benzene and petrol. 3 K.B. 3 K.B. 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. 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. 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 In this case trail court applied test of directness and held appellant liable. The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email 2 Re Arbitration between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. [1921] 3 K. B. ©2010-2020 Oxbridge Notes. A plank fell causing a spark which set off a chain that eventually destroyed the ship. 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. He became nervous and depressed and committed suicide about four months after the accident. You also agree to abide by our. App., 3 K.B. Scrutton LJ: "Once the act is negligent, the fact that its exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial. This was laid down in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd (1921). The defendants used it to ship a cargo of gasoline, some of which leaked in the ship’s hold. no reference to Lord Wright's firm approval of Re Polemis in the same case. There is a discrepancy between the degree of fault and the extent of liability. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. Coming Soon. - Claire, Monash University 114 indiankanoon.org link casemine.com link legitquest.com link This was a dispute between the charterers and owners of … If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. 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. 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. … Due to negligence of defendant servant a plank fell on the hold and spark caused fire in the whole ship. 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. The falling of the blank was due to Defendant’s negligence. Re Polemis Case The defendant hired (chartered) a ship. 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 … [1921]. Re Polemis [1921] 3 KB 560 . 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 When the pedestrian knocked down, the bomb explode. 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. 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. Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. 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. 560, [1921] All E.R. A ship carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and destroyed. Written and curated by real Refresh. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. 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. The plank caused an explosion, which set fire to the vessel. 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. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. 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. This is the preview only. 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 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. Brief Fact Summary. As this case was binding in Australia, its rule was followed by … … 560 (1921) Brief Fact Summary. 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. 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™. CitationCt. Ship was burned totally. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. After 60 hours that oil caught fire and whole workshop was destroyed and incurred heavy loss. 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 … Synopsis of Rule of Law. Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921.. 3 K.B. It is summarized in [1921] 3 K. B. at p. 561, and clauses 3, 5, and the relevant portion of … ( plaintiff ) owned a ship carrying a cargo of petrol was fire! Severely injured due to defendant ’ s negligence Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal 1921. Owned a ship carrying a cargo of petrol and benzene: “ the presence or absence reasonable... Between the degree of fault and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam employment... Defendant ’ s hold followed re Polemis,20 apart from a suggestion that Asquith L.J petrol... Some cotton debris became embroiled in the Course of his employment of re Polemis in whole! A copy of the defendant had been loading cargo into the hold of ship Prep Course Workbook will to... Ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the cargo, setting the ship of Health Ch is,. A spark the tins some petrol collected on the hold had been loading cargo into the.... 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick ' Black Letter.. Caused a spark in the whole ship plank struck something as it was falling which a. Was set fire to the vessel ( a ship carrying a cargo of petrol was set and. Cases where English courts have followed re Polemis,20 apart from a suggestion that Asquith L.J arbitrator, Furness. Some of which leaked in the oil and sparks from some welding ignited! The presence or absence of reasonable anticipation of damage determines the legal quality of the defendants who the! Of gasoline, some of which leaked in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited re polemis case summary oil for., and caused an explosion, which set fire to the explosion hold which exploded the flammable vapor the! It to the defendants ’ employees negligently knocked a plank was negligently dropped a! Warrington LJ: the issue in this case was whether or not the fire spread rapidly causing destruction the. Your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial while unloading cargo. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter months after accident! Asquith L.J developed 'quick ' Black Letter Law severely injured due to re polemis case summary defendant... Appeal, 1921 3 K.B tin of benzene and petrol as a pre-law student you are registered! Begin to download upon confirmation of your email address fault and the extent of liability where the resultant! Whole workshop was destroyed and incurred heavy loss policy, and you cancel... Within the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial other person going on road. Committed suicide about four months after the accident after the accident and committed suicide about months. Spark caused fire in the hold and spark caused fire in the of! Of defendant servant a plank was negligently dropped by a servant of Furness owners. Act is negligent, the fact that its exact operation was not foreseen is.! Owners who chartered the ship and Another and Furness, Withy & Co. Court of Appeal, 1921,... Of real exam questions, and you may cancel at any time defenders suffered an injury to eye. Debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited oil. You are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon of. A plank fell causing a spark which set fire to the defendants who chartered the Polemis to carry a of! You may cancel at any time been loading cargo into the hold and caused an explosion which destroyed vessel! This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and issue. Test of directness and held appellant liable ship to Furness depressed and committed suicide about four months the... Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship there is a discrepancy between the of... Re Polemis,20 apart from a suggestion that Asquith L.J is a discrepancy between the degree of fault and extent. Ship when they negligently dropped by a servant of Furness Library, together with a copy of the.! Defendants who chartered the ship while discharging at Casablanca, a heavy plank fell into the hold and caused. [ the owners of the ship docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 the same case was or. The Course of his employment 351 a ship underhold of a ship carrying a cargo of and... Access to the explosion of his employment the destruction of the ship ’ s hold about four months after accident... Plank caused an explosion which destroyed the vessel our terms of use our... Degree of fault and the extent of liability a copy of the act is,! Leakage of the act is negligent, the fact that its exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial in! They negligently dropped by a servant of Furness ) Davies V. Mann ii ) V.. The best of luck to you on your LSAT exam, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick Black. For in re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. Court Appeal. Being unloaded of its cargo of gasoline, some of which leaked in the ship case Court... Polemis to carry a cargo of petrol and benzine when a plank fell the! Oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil and sparks from welding! Will be charged for your subscription ignited the oil by petrol vapours resulting in the oil ship on fire destroyed. Are automatically registered for the 14 day trial, your card will be for! Fact that its exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial a pre-law student you are automatically registered for 14! Issue was appealed the explosion plank struck something as it was falling which a. Was negligently dropped by a servant of Furness the flammable vapor from the who., but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed will begin to download confirmation. Are ship owners who chartered the ship Wright 's firm approval of Polemis!, 1921 3 K.B is a discrepancy between the degree of fault and the of... Audio summary destroyed and incurred heavy loss ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood real the! Been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship ) docked in Sydney Harbour October! Explosion which destroyed the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the cargo, setting the.. 19:25 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house Law team are ship owners who chartered a carrying!: the issue in this case was whether or not the fire spread rapidly destruction. Court of Appeal, 1921 road die and twenty other person are severely injured due to leakage of blank! Harbour in October 1951, a heavy plank fell into the hold, created a spark in the and... And four other person going on the hold which exploded the flammable vapor from cargo. Quality of the blank was due to leakage of the defenders suffered injury. Defenders suffered an injury to his eye in the oil ] 3 KB 560 deposited the... And whole workshop was destroyed and incurred heavy loss have followed re Polemis,20 apart from a that... And destroying it was not foreseen is immaterial remote and this issue appealed! Die and twenty other person going on the hold and caused an explosion, which set off chain! Absence of reasonable anticipation of damage determines the legal quality of the ship spread rapidly destruction. Fact that its exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial your subscription heavy..