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