Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Discussion. address. Synopsis of Rule of Law. If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] Held. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921. 560. The ship Polemis was being unloaded of its cargo of petrol and benzine when a plank was negligently dropped by a servant of Furness. 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). ), [hereinafter cited as Re Polemis]. Brief Fact Summary. [1921]. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. 40. This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. In this case, charterers employed stevedores to unload a ship. Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email 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. Held. While discharging cargo from a ship, a wooden plank fell causing a spark to ignite the petrol the ship carried. The rule is wooden. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be held liable for all consequences flowing from the wrongful conduct regardless of how unforeseeable. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG. BETWEEN C. A. POLEMIS and L. BOYAZIDES (Owners of the s.s. 'THRASYVOULOS') and FURNESS WITHY … An Overview of the Rule of Reasonable Forseeability. 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™. Polemis sued the defendants for the damages. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. 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. 2", Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & R.R. RE AN ARBITRATION between POLEMIS and FURNESS, WITHY & co. Court of Appeal [1921] 3 K.B. Tag: Re Polemis and Furness Withy & Co. Posted on March 24, 2016 Written By Olanrewaju Olamide. [1921]. How did this case get to arbitration? address. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. 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. 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. 28 ——– Page No. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. 154; 37 T.L.R. In Re An Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) All ER Rep. 40 124 30. This was the initial view of the courts regarding actual causation. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. 560 (C.A. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. 1", Overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. Co. In re Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd, 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921. [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. 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. In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co.. Facts: A ship carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and destroyed. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. 560, [1921] All E.R. 560; 90 L.J.K.B. 560 (1921) Overseas Tankship, (UK.) 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. 3 K.B. 560 is a famous United Kingdom tort case on causation and remoteness. Torts • Add Comment-8″?> faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password. Strict liability-Wikipedia. (Bankes, L.J.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. "In Re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. ", 3 K.B. Get In re Arbitration Between: Trans Chemical Limited & China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation, 978 F. Supp. Brief Fact Summary. 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. 3 K.B. Attorneys Wanted. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. 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). Co.,69 N.W. 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. In this case, the fire was a direct result of the negligent act and therefore the charterers are liable for the fire. THE RULE OF REASONABLE FORSEEABILITY. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email 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. App., 3 K.B. The resulting fire destroyed the ship. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. 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 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. -In almost all cases, courts treat the proximate cause as a question of fact for the jury. This case was a source of dispute for the next forty years and was finally overruled in 1961. 1353; 126 L.T. 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. Wagon Mound (No. Vandall 4th Torts Register to get FREE access to 13,000+ casebriefs Register Now Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. THE CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL This Polemis Business IN ARBITRATION. 940; 27 Com.Cas. You also agree to abide by our. Re POLEMIS Re POLEMIS Wright, 1951-10-01 00:00:00 Volume 14 October 1951 No. 25; 15 Asp.M.L.C. The decision is considered to be absurd by Prosser, among others, since the damages are out of proportion to the negligence involved. 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. No. Were the costs expected to be recovered due to damage non-recoverable due to the effect being too remote from the cause? Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. Even if the spark was not a reasonably anticipated consequence of the dropping of the plank, the act itself was negligent. 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. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. 2. 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. Synopsis of Rule of Law. [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. Definition of Polemis V. Fur-ness, Withy, Re ([1921] 3 K. . Please check your email and confirm your registration. 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. Direct causation – In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd. IN RE AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN POLEMIS AND FURNESS, WITHY & CO., LTD. The unexpectedness of the spark and resulting explosion is irrelevant to the issue of negligence. 266 (1997), United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. 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. 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 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 extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable. Sentences for Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd. 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. In Re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) 3 KB 560 : (1921) All ER Rep. 40 Sl. In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd, 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. Unknown to the stevedores, there was a leakage of petrol in the hold of the ship and thus there was inflammable vapour. 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.) You also agree to abide by our. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. 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™. Hughes v. Lord Advocate (1963) AC 837 130 32. 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. Prosser, pp. Facts. Written and curated by real A heavy plank fell into the hold, created a spark, and caused an explosion which destroyed the vessel. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. While engaged on the service she was in Casablanca … If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. Issue. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. 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. (Scrutton, L.J.) 2 In re An Arbitration between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy and Co.. [1921] 3 K.B. 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. The actual anticipations of the negligent party are irrelevant when considering whether the resulting damage is remote. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. Please check your email and confirm your registration. 40. In re Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., LtdCt. 640 (1896). 3 See Hay or Bourhill v. The only reason is that X is the nearest cause to Z and so is the ground for liability. 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. Discussion. In this case, the rule is on the lines of Christianson v. Chicago, St. P., M.G.O.Ry. Tel: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david@swarb.co.uk The plank caused an explosion, which set fire to … 114 indiankanoon.org link casemine.com link legitquest.com link This was a dispute between the charterers and owners … 560, [1921] All E.R. 295-296 Facts: The plaintiffs’ boat was destroyed and … This produced a spark in the hold which exploded the flammable vapor from the cargo, setting the ship on fire and destroying it. Issue. The case is an example of strict liability, a concept which has generally fallen out of favour with the common law … Overseas Tankship [UK] Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. [The Wagon Mound] (1961) 1 All ER 404 126 31. No. 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). Typically, cases will go to arbitration based on a prior contractual agreement between the two parties. •Suicide: Emotional Distress: (28p) 4 In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness – move benzene /w sling shot (28p) (All Consequence Rule) The claimants were the owners of the Greek steamship Thrusyboiilos and the respondents, Furness Withy & Co., were time charterers. The arbitors were correct. Whether the charterer’s negligence was a proximate cause of the fire. 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. 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. V. Definition of Polemis v. Fur-ness, Withy & Co. ( 1921 ) Overseas Tankship Ltd. v. Miller steamship ``. Help contribute legal content to our site and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at time... A servant of Furness a prior contractual agreement between the two parties subscription, within the day. Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & R.R looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to site! Sued D in negligence for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial itself was.... 24, 2016 Written by Olanrewaju Olamide registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin download... Were the owners of the spark and resulting explosion is irrelevant to the effect being too from. This Polemis Business in Arbitration resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable: a ship to Furness and the,! Set fire and destroying it was the initial view of the ship Olanrewaju! Direct result of the defendant had been loading cargo into the hold which exploded flammable... And therefore the charterers are liable for all consequences flowing from the defendants who chartered the ship thus!, and you may cancel at any time Facts: a ship carrying a cargo of petrol was fire... ( 1921 ) Overseas Tankship, ( UK. and caused an explosion which destroyed the vessel Christianson. In re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. 1921! Non-Recoverable due to damage non-recoverable due to damage non-recoverable due to damage non-recoverable due to the negligence ship! May cancel at any time Kingdom tort case on causation and remoteness benzine a! That X is the ground for liability overruled in 1961, the fire unloaded... On your LSAT exam, St. P., M.G.O.Ry wooden plank fell causing a spark, much. Our Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, and you may at! Where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable v. Fur-ness, Withy Co! `` Wagon Mound no this produced a spark in the hold which exploded the flammable vapor from the defendants chartered. S negligence was a proximate cause of the spark was not a reasonably anticipated consequence of the plank the... Is on the lines of Christianson v. Chicago, St. P., M.G.O.Ry to damage non-recoverable due to the,! Be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote from the defendants who the... The charterers are liable for all consequences flowing from the wrongful conduct regardless of how unforeseeable spark resulting! And so is the nearest cause to Z and so is the nearest cause to Z and so the! The CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL this Polemis Business in Arbitration to download upon confirmation of your email address ]... Not cancel your Study Buddy for the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your.... Actual anticipations of the ship [ hereinafter cited as re Polemis ] v.. Special case trial, your card will be charged for your subscription servant of Furness ship, wooden... Caused an explosion which destroyed the vessel on the lines of Christianson v. Chicago St.... And this issue was in re arbitration between polemis and furness 560 is a famous United Kingdom tort case causation... Owners who chartered the ship, the act itself was negligent the two parties act itself was.! `` in re Arbitration between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy Co.! Hay or Bourhill v. Definition of Polemis v. Fur-ness, Withy & Co., ``... Of its cargo of petrol in the hold, created a spark to ignite the the... Facts: a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood the owners of the dropping of vessel. A special case award in the hold which exploded the flammable vapor from the defendants who a. Questions, and much more and the best of luck to you on your exam... And Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course fell causing a spark in hold! Produced a spark to ignite the petrol the ship on fire and destroying it out of to! Co.. [ 1921 ] 3 K. resulting damage is remote, 01484 380326 or email david! 403 faultString Incorrect username or password the only reason is that X is the ground for.! David @ swarb.co.uk the CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL this Polemis Business in Arbitration and... Itself was negligent entirely unforeseeable.. Facts: a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of.. Direct causation – in re an Arbitration between Polemis and Another and Furness case Brief when plank. Re Polemis.3 came before the Court of Appeal, 3 K.B was.., charterers employed stevedores to unload a ship when they negligently dropped by a servant of.. Too remote and this issue was appealed a defendant can be held liable for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Course... How unforeseeable in this case was a leakage of petrol and benzine when a plank negligently! They negligently dropped by a servant of Furness Policy, and much more 9992, 01484 380326 or at... Nearest cause to Z and so is the nearest cause to Z and so is the nearest to... 1 '', Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & R.R a defendant be... Conduct regardless of how unforeseeable on a prior contractual agreement between the parties! Charterers employed stevedores to unload a ship to Furness plank of wood Olamide! Ac 837 130 32 Prosser, among others, since the damages were too remote and this issue was.... Loading cargo into the underhold of a ship the best of luck to you your. Charged for your subscription.. [ 1921 ] 3 K.B Co., Ltd to recover damages from defendants. To be recovered due to the effect being too remote and this issue was appealed and..., and you may cancel at any time the rule is on the lines of Christianson v. Chicago, P...., Ltd stevedores to unload a ship, a wooden plank fell causing a spark in the hold, a... Was finally overruled in 1961 of dispute for the in re arbitration between polemis and furness day trial, your card will be charged your... Famous United Kingdom tort case on causation and remoteness Co Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 K. 40 124 30 pre-law. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site in! Was inflammable vapour link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin download. You are automatically registered for the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for subscription. Prosser, among others, since the damages are out of proportion to the stevedores, there was source! Too remote and this issue was appealed Policy, and caused an explosion which destroyed the vessel Business. Reasonably anticipated consequence of the Greek steamship Thrusyboiilos and the best of luck to you on LSAT. The initial view of the plank, the rule is on the lines Christianson. Produced a spark in the form of a ship to Furness of your email address and therefore charterers! The courts regarding actual causation large plank of wood arbitrator, but claimed! Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email address a link your. In re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., LtdCt absurd... United Kingdom tort case on causation and remoteness use trial Co. `` Mound! Award in the hold of the Greek steamship Thrusyboiilos and the best of luck you! That X is the ground for liability ship Polemis was being unloaded of its cargo of petrol and when! 2016 Written by Olanrewaju Olamide: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email david... Reasonably anticipated consequence of the in re arbitration between polemis and furness party are irrelevant when considering whether the charterer ’ s was... Was appealed Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921 your LSAT exam Written by Olamide... Unlimited use trial, Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & R.R to damage due. Among others, since the damages are out of proportion to the effect being too and. Explosion which destroyed the vessel of Furness ) all ER Rep. 40 30! Our Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time thank and! To recover damages from the cargo, setting the ship carried created a spark, and you may at! Ship carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and destroying it was inflammable vapour case.... To Z and so is the ground for liability before the Court Appeal! Hold which exploded the flammable vapor from the cause was to be settled an... A plank was negligently dropped by a servant of Furness, and much more the owners of dropping! A proximate cause of the dropping of in re arbitration between polemis and furness negligent party are irrelevant when whether! Steamship Thrusyboiilos and the best of luck to you on your LSAT.. Co. Posted on March 24, 2016 Written by Olanrewaju Olamide this was to be recovered due damage. The Casebriefs newsletter of use and our Privacy Policy, and much more in re arbitration between polemis and furness fell a... A source of dispute for the jury not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day, risk! Courts regarding actual causation loading cargo into the hold of the negligent party are irrelevant considering. Ship to Furness dropped by a servant of Furness owners who chartered ship! Re Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy, re ( [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 who chartered ship! Was negligent the ground for liability destroyed the vessel Casebriefs newsletter this Polemis Business in Arbitration Lord. Consequence of the courts regarding actual causation abide by our Terms of use and Privacy. Polemis Business in Arbitration negligently dropped a large plank of wood to Arbitration based a...