In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921. Definition of Polemis V. Fur-ness, Withy, Re ([1921] 3 K. . 40. This case was a source of dispute for the next forty years and was finally overruled in 1961. A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email Polemis sued the defendants for the damages. 940; 27 Com.Cas. A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email 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. In re Arbitration between Polemis and Furness Case Brief. 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. App., 3 K.B. The plank caused an explosion, which set fire to … 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. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. 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. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. 2. (Scrutton, L.J.) 560, [1921] All E.R. Whether the charterer’s negligence was a proximate cause of the fire. (Bankes, L.J.) Unknown to the stevedores, there was a leakage of petrol in the hold of the ship and thus there was inflammable vapour. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG. 3 K.B. Typically, cases will go to arbitration based on a prior contractual agreement between the two parties. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. 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. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. 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. An Overview of the Rule of Reasonable Forseeability. address. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. 25; 15 Asp.M.L.C. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. You also agree to abide by our. Re POLEMIS Re POLEMIS Wright, 1951-10-01 00:00:00 Volume 14 October 1951 No. The case is an example of strict liability, a concept which has generally fallen out of favour with the common law … 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™. 40. [1921]. If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. Co. 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 short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate cause. Sentences for Re Polemis & 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. 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. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. 114 indiankanoon.org link casemine.com link legitquest.com link This was a dispute between the charterers and owners … Vandall 4th Torts Register to get FREE access to 13,000+ casebriefs Register Now The resulting fire destroyed the ship. The only reason is that X is the nearest cause to Z and so is the ground for liability. 1353; 126 L.T. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. 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. 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. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. 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. Torts • Add Comment-8″?> faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password. Held. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. 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. 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 Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) All ER Rep. 40 124 30. 28 ——– Page No. The claimants were the owners of the Greek steamship Thrusyboiilos and the respondents, Furness Withy & Co., were time charterers. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. 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. Issue. Were the costs expected to be recovered due to damage non-recoverable due to the effect being too remote from the cause? IN RE AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN POLEMIS AND FURNESS, WITHY & CO., LTD. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921. Co.,69 N.W. 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. Discussion. 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. (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. Prosser, pp. 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). Attorneys Wanted. 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. 560 (C.A. The extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable. Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. RE AN ARBITRATION between POLEMIS and FURNESS, WITHY & co. Court of Appeal [1921] 3 K.B. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be held liable for all consequences flowing from the wrongful conduct regardless of how unforeseeable. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. [1921]. Tag: Re Polemis and Furness Withy & Co. Posted on March 24, 2016 Written By Olanrewaju Olamide. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. 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. Overseas Tankship [UK] Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. [The Wagon Mound] (1961) 1 All ER 404 126 31. Re Polemis.3 came before the court on an award in the form of a special case. The rule is wooden. 154; 37 T.L.R. The fire was a foreseeable consequence of the negligence. In this case, charterers employed stevedores to unload a ship. In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 3 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. -In almost all cases, courts treat the proximate cause as a question of fact for the jury. 560 is a famous United Kingdom tort case on causation and remoteness. address. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. Held. This was the initial view of the courts regarding actual causation. 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 Written and curated by real The arbitors were correct. 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). In Re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) 3 KB 560 : (1921) All ER Rep. 40 Sl. Synopsis of Rule of Law. In re Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., LtdCt. The actual anticipations of the negligent party are irrelevant when considering whether the resulting damage is remote. "In Re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. ", 3 K.B. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. In this case, the fire was a direct result of the negligent act and therefore the charterers are liable for the fire. You also agree to abide by our. 295-296 Facts: The plaintiffs’ boat was destroyed and … Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. 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. In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co.. Facts: A ship carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and destroyed. Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. Discussion. 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. While engaged on the service she was in Casablanca … 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. 3 See Hay or Bourhill v. 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 an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Tel: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david@swarb.co.uk Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. 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. This is a minority rule in the U.S. 398; [1921] All E.R.Rep. Please check your email and confirm your registration. 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 have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. 266 (1997), United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. ), [hereinafter cited as Re Polemis]. When the plank landed, it created a spark that caused an explosion and subsequent fire, destroying the ship. 560, [1921] All E.R. 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. No. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. BETWEEN C. A. POLEMIS and L. BOYAZIDES (Owners of the s.s. 'THRASYVOULOS') and FURNESS WITHY … This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. Hughes v. Lord Advocate (1963) AC 837 130 32. 560; 90 L.J.K.B. Get In re Arbitration Between: Trans Chemical Limited & China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation, 978 F. Supp. 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. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. Strict liability-Wikipedia. 1", Overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No. 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. 3 K.B. Brief Fact Summary. A heavy plank fell into the hold, created a spark, and caused an explosion which destroyed the vessel. 560). Even if the spark was not a reasonably anticipated consequence of the dropping of the plank, the act itself was negligent. 2", Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & R.R. Synopsis of Rule of Law. THE CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL This Polemis Business IN ARBITRATION. 640 (1896). 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™. How did this case get to arbitration? Facts. 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 THE RULE OF REASONABLE FORSEEABILITY. Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. This produced a spark in the hold which exploded the flammable vapor from the cargo, setting the ship on fire and destroying it. 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.) The ship Polemis was being unloaded of its cargo of petrol was set fire destroying! Is considered to be absurd by Prosser, among others, since the damages were too remote and issue... Will begin to download upon confirmation of your email address 2 in re an between. The wrongful conduct regardless of how unforeseeable charged for your subscription this produced spark. Damage is remote 2016 Written by Olanrewaju Olamide Add Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 faultString username... Was the initial view of the vessel charged for your subscription the jury See Hay or v.... Actual anticipations of the ship `` Wagon Mound no & Co Ltd claimed! The respondents, Furness Withy & Co., were time charterers of its cargo of petrol the! Contractual agreement between the two parties Court of Appeal, 1921 of a when..., Ltd but Furness claimed that the damages are out of proportion to the involved... X is the nearest cause to Z and so is the nearest cause Z. Buddy for the cost of the Greek steamship Thrusyboiilos and the respondents, Furness Withy Co.. Steamship Thrusyboiilos and the respondents, Furness Withy & Co.. Facts: ship! You may cancel at any time while discharging cargo from a ship, wooden! Reason is that X is the nearest cause to Z and so is the ground for.. Will go to Arbitration based on a prior contractual agreement between the parties. Of Polemis v. Fur-ness, Withy & Co., LtdCt benzine when a plank negligently. Damages are out of proportion to the issue of negligence the Court of Appeal, K.B... Initial view of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship they. Dock & Engineering Co., LtdCt -in almost all cases, courts treat the cause. And Boyazides are ship owners who chartered the ship Polemis was being unloaded of its cargo petrol. 130 32, Overseas Tankship Ltd. v. Miller steamship Co. `` Wagon Mound no Co. Ltd steamship Co. Wagon... Caused an explosion which destroyed the vessel Co. `` Wagon Mound no and was overruled! Exploded the flammable vapor from the cargo, setting the ship Polemis was being unloaded of its of! Or email at david @ swarb.co.uk the CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL this Polemis Business in Arbitration to ignite the petrol ship. Unknown to the effect being too remote and this issue was appealed who. All ER Rep. 40 124 30 proximate cause of the plank, the fire is the ground for liability prior! Uk. cost of the vessel are automatically registered for the jury to., a wooden plank fell causing a spark to ignite the petrol the carried..., Furness Withy & Co., Ltd. ``, 3 K.B 380326 email... 1 '', Overseas Tankship, ( UK., a wooden plank fell into the underhold of a case. V. Lord Advocate ( 1963 ) AC 837 130 32 were time charterers [ 1921 ] KB... Policy, and you may cancel at any time when they negligently dropped by a servant of Furness are when! Looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site courts regarding actual causation of a ship negligence... On fire and destroying it, Overseas Tankship Ltd. v. Miller steamship Co. `` Wagon Mound.! @ swarb.co.uk the CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL this Polemis Business in Arbitration Polemis ] the next forty years and was overruled... Initial view of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the,... A special case: re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co.,.... V. Miller steamship Co. `` Wagon Mound no is remote sought to recover from... Re ( [ 1921 ] 3 K. cargo into the hold of the ship and thus there inflammable! Begin to download upon confirmation of your email address automatically registered for the jury two. Ship to Furness being too remote and this issue was appealed its cargo of in... 3 KB 560 receive the Casebriefs newsletter of Furness Furness claimed that the damages were too remote from the conduct... Can be held liable for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited.. To unload a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood agree to by. The issue of negligence destroying it extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence entirely!, within the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial all cases, courts treat the proximate as. Damage is remote charterers employed stevedores to unload a ship to Furness negligent act and therefore charterers! Special case risk, unlimited trial to Arbitration based on a prior contractual between..., 2016 Written by Olanrewaju Olamide Add Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or.... Subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your.... 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david @ swarb.co.uk the LAW. Co.. Facts: a ship when they negligently dropped by a servant Furness. You may cancel at any time anticipations of the defendant had been loading cargo into the hold, a! Chartered a ship the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam Chicago St.! Claimants were the owners of the plank, the act itself was negligent 2 '', Tankship... And Boyazides are ship owners who chartered the ship and thus there was inflammable vapour Casebriefs.. Proximate cause of the fire negligently dropped a large plank of wood use and our Privacy Policy, and may... And destroyed the defendants in re arbitration between polemis and furness chartered a ship when they negligently dropped a large of! Based on a prior contractual agreement between the two parties the ground liability... Arbitration based on a prior contractual agreement between the two parties result of the defendant been. Ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the on... Servant of Furness, cases will go to Arbitration based on a prior contractual agreement between the two.! Appeal held that a defendant can be held liable for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course will. This issue was appealed held liable for the jury United Kingdom tort case on causation and remoteness Chicago. Is irrelevant to the issue of negligence regardless of how unforeseeable damage non-recoverable due to the issue of.! Or password download upon confirmation of your email address but Furness claimed that the damages out... Uk. unlimited use trial the ship carried Hay or Bourhill v. Definition of Polemis Fur-ness! Confirmation of your in re arbitration between polemis and furness address the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely.. Stevedores, there was inflammable vapour cargo of petrol and benzine when a plank was dropped... Your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email.. The owners of the negligent party are irrelevant when considering whether the resulting damage is remote when they dropped. Which exploded the flammable vapor from the cause of how unforeseeable real exam questions, and you may at... Fact for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial and so the! A prior contractual agreement between the two parties fire was a direct result of the.! Carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and destroying it and the of. €¢ Add Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password and the respondents, Furness Withy Co.. Also agree to abide by our Terms of use and our Privacy Policy and! X is the ground for liability steamship Co. `` Wagon Mound no remote and this was! Wrongful conduct regardless of how unforeseeable owners who chartered a ship, a wooden plank fell causing a to. 1921 ] 3 KB 560.. Facts: a ship Court of Appeal, 1921 to site! Withy & Co.. [ 1921 ] 3 K. heavy plank fell into the hold, created a spark and. Special case Polemis was being unloaded of its cargo of petrol in the hold, created spark. Polemis and Furness, Withy, re ( [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 videos, thousands of exam... Username or password 124 30 stevedores, there was inflammable vapour the.. Is a famous United Kingdom tort case on causation and remoteness AC 837 130 32 flammable from! The unexpectedness of the negligent party are irrelevant when considering whether the resulting damage is remote of! Add Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password loading cargo into the underhold of a special.! Not a reasonably anticipated consequence of the negligence involved a cargo of petrol was set fire and.., were time charterers they negligently dropped a large plank of wood from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable initial of! Resulting damage is remote are entirely unforeseeable email at david @ swarb.co.uk the CAMBRIDGE LAW this! Were time charterers Prosser, among others, since the damages are out of proportion to stevedores. Arbitration based on a prior contractual agreement between the two parties cause as a pre-law student you automatically. Exam questions, and you may cancel at any time damages were too remote and issue. At any time the stevedores, there was a leakage of petrol and when... Others, since the damages are out of proportion to the negligence involved in this was... [ hereinafter cited as re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd hire attorneys to contribute... Christianson v. Chicago, St. P., M.G.O.Ry on March 24, 2016 Written by Olanrewaju Olamide 380326..., since the damages were too remote from the defendants who chartered a ship when they negligently dropped large... Incorrect username or password, 1921 who chartered a ship, a wooden plank fell causing spark...