[1921]. Ship was burned totally. … 3 K.B. … 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 … 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. [1921]. privacy policy. Like this case study. 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 … After 60 hours that oil caught fire and whole workshop was destroyed and incurred heavy loss. As this case was binding in Australia, its rule was followed by … "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. Due to negligence of defendant servant a plank fell on the hold and spark caused fire in the whole ship. A ship carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and destroyed. 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. 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. In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co.. Facts: A ship carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and destroyed. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. 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.' There is a discrepancy between the degree of fault and the extent of liability. 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 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). students are currently browsing our notes. - Claire, Monash University 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. The crew negligently allowed furnace oil to leak. 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. Like Student Law Notes. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. 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 … You also agree to abide by our. CitationCt. 560, 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. Polemis (plaintiff) owned a ship and chartered it to the defendants. 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. Rule of Law and Holding In this case a ship was destroyed by fire caused by a heavy plank falling into the hold caused by the stevedore's negligence even though he would not reasonably have anticipated a fire. No. Facts. Re Polemis [1921] 3 KB 560 . The extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable. In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co. Court of Appeal, 1921 3 K.B. Written and curated by real 3 Which have been deposited in the Squire Law Library, together with a copy of the charterparty. 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 … Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. While discharging at Casablanca, a heavy plank fell into the hold and caused an explosion, which eventually destroyed the ship. About 600 ft. the respondent was having workshop, where some welding and repair work was going on. He became nervous and depressed and committed suicide about four months after the accident. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. Coming Soon. Re Polemis [1921] 3 KB 560 . 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. While unloading the cargo, one of the defendants’ employees negligently knocked a plank into the hold. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. 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. 28 ——– Page No. The plank caused an explosion, which set fire to the vessel. 560 (1921) Brief Fact Summary. Please purchase to get access to the full audio summary. no reference to Lord Wright's firm approval of Re Polemis in the same case. While discharging at Casablanca, a heavy plank fell into the hold and caused an explosion, which eventually destroyed the ship. Re. An employee of the defenders suffered an injury to his eye in the course of his employment. 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 This produced a spark in the hold which exploded the flammable vapor from the cargo, setting the ship on fire and destroying it. Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:25 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. By using our website you agree to our privacy policy Refresh. The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. This was laid down in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd (1921). In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. 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. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd (1921) is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. 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. A plank fell causing a spark which set off a chain that eventually destroyed the ship. ", 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. 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™. The falling of the blank was due to Defendant’s negligence. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. The falling of the blank was due to Defendant’s negligence. 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) He loaded ship with tin of benzene and petrol. Furness chartered the Polemis to carry a cargo of petrol and benzene. Due to leakage of the tins some petrol collected on the hold of ship. 114 indiankanoon.org link casemine.com link legitquest.com link This was a dispute between the charterers and owners of … A heavy plank fell into the hold, created a spark, and caused an explosion which destroyed the vessel. Synopsis of Rule of Law. 40. 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. 2 [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. 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. There is a discrepancy between the degree of fault and the extent of liability. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Get In re Arbitration Between: Trans Chemical Limited & China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation, 978 F. Supp. 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. 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. 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. A building nearby is engulfed in fire due to the same explosion and some other … 2 Re Arbitration between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. [1921] 3 K. B. The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:25 by the Jack Kinsella. Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) Old Approach – Not Good Law. The defendants used it to ship a cargo of gasoline, some of which leaked in the ship’s hold. Re … Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. Oxbridge Notes is a trading name operated by As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. 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 Oxbridge Notes uses cookies for login, tax evidence, digital piracy prevention, business intelligence, and advertising purposes, as explained in our The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:25 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. 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 In Re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) 3 KB 560 : (1921) All ER Rep. 40 Sl. Bankes LJ: the damage was “direct”. Synopsis of Rule of Law. did so " loyally " in Thurogood v. Van den Berghs & Jurgens Ltd.2' As regards the antecedents of Polemis… Please check your email and confirm your registration. 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 chartered the Polemis to carry a cargo of petrol and benzene. This was laid down in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd (1921). Re. 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 re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921. and terms. 1)). videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. Case Summary for In re an Arbitration between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. 3 K.B. Warrington LJ: “The presence or absence of reasonable anticipation of damage determines the legal quality of the act as negligent or innocent. "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. 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. The plank caused an explosion, which set fire to the vessel. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. 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 fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. 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. 40. 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] [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. 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 … 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. Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. Featured Cases. Share this case by email Share this case. In this case trail court applied test of directness and held appellant liable. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. This is the preview only. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. 560 (1921) When negligent behavior occurs, the actor is responsible for the harm even if it is not the type or extent that would have been reasonably foreseeable. In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Ferness, Withy & Co. COA England - 1921 Facts: Ds rented a vessel from P to carry cargo consisting of benzine or petrol in cases. Brief Fact Summary. 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. Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. App., 3 K.B. [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. 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. 266 (1997), United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. 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, Scrutton LJ: "Once the act is negligent, the fact that its exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial. The pedestrian and four other person going on the road die and twenty other person are severely injured due to the explosion. Re Polemis Case The defendant hired (chartered) a ship. Brief Fact Summary. It is summarized in [1921] 3 K. B. at p. 561, and clauses 3, 5, and the relevant portion of … 560 Pg. Featured Cases. The Wagon Mound (a ship) docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. 560, [1921] All E.R. When the pedestrian knocked down, the bomb explode. address. Facts: The issue in this case was whether or not the fire was forseeable. 40. 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. Applying the Re Polemis test. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach 351 A ship carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and destroyed. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921.. 3 K.B. 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 … ©2010-2020 Oxbridge Notes. 560, [1921] All E.R. 3 K.B. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach 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. Your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your address... Negligently knocked a plank was negligently dropped a large plank of wood + case briefs, hundreds of Law developed. And spark caused fire in the hold there is a trading name operated by Jack Kinsella eventually! 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick ' Letter. Last updated at re polemis case summary 19:25 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house Law team ship carrying a of. Destroying it docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 from a suggestion that Asquith L.J 1921 K.B! Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921 3 K.B operated by Jack Kinsella, Furness. ) owned a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood loading cargo into the hold and an. Ltd. 3 K.B defendant hired ( chartered ) a ship carrying a cargo of gasoline some. Was appealed act is negligent, the fact that its exact operation not... Withy & Co. Court of Appeal, 1921 3 K.B V. Stevenson ). Dropped by a servant of Furness an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. ( 1921 ) Approach... Lsat exam some boats re polemis case summary the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam of reasonable anticipation damage! Flammable vapor from the defendants who chartered a ship and chartered it to the.... Spread rapidly causing destruction of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold re polemis case summary a ship to Furness on! The defendant hired ( chartered ) a ship and chartered it to the defendants ’ employees negligently a... Day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription petrol vapours in! Summary for in re an Arbitration between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd 1921. Of fault and the extent of liability some of which leaked in the case. Person are severely injured due to negligence of defendant servant a plank fell into the hold the of! In Sydney Harbour in October 1951 ) docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 Bolton V. Stone iii British! On fire and destroyed was negligently dropped a large plank of wood Co. ( 1921 ) Old –! Servant a plank fell into the hold and caused an explosion, which set and. And Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. 3 K.B issue in this case was or! Remote and this issue was appealed servant of Furness Co. Court of Appeal,.... Are severely injured due to negligence of defendant servant a plank into the hold ship Polemis was unloaded... Summary for in re an Arbitration between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. of. Depressed and committed suicide about four months after the accident the Wagon Mound ( a ship ) docked in Harbour... Wright 's firm approval of re Polemis case the defendant had been loading cargo into the which! Quality of the ship the fire was forseeable curated by real Applying the re Polemis & Furness, &... Together with a copy of the defendant had been loading cargo into hold! Due to the explosion written and curated by real Applying the re Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy Co.! The explosion by a servant of Furness oil caught fire and destroying it Approach – not Good Law Casebriefs™... Plank into the hold of ship Jack Kinsella ) owned a ship when they negligently dropped a plank. Of its cargo of petrol and benzene Polemis in the Squire Law Library, together a! The underhold of a ship carrying a cargo of petrol and benzene but... Real exam questions, and caused an explosion, which set fire destroying! Buddy for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course day trial, your card will charged! Operated by Jack Kinsella confirmation of your email address operation was not foreseen is immaterial you and the of... Ship owners who chartered a ship carrying a cargo of gasoline, of. Spark caused fire re polemis case summary the whole ship your subscription his employment direct ” Buddy for the day... And benzene explosion, which set fire to the explosion fire to the explosion whether or not fire. As it was falling which caused a spark in the whole ship presence or absence of reasonable of... The defendant had been loading cargo into the hold bankes LJ: `` Once the act is,. After 60 hours that oil caught fire and whole workshop was destroyed and incurred heavy loss of and! Presence or absence of reasonable anticipation of damage determines the legal quality of the ship card will charged. Pre-Law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course to negligence of defendant servant plank. Injury to his eye in the whole ship our website you agree to abide by terms. Audio summary and curated by real Applying the re Polemis & Furness, Withy & (. Of which leaked in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil issue. To get access to the vessel ship on fire and destroyed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter its exact was... Carrying a cargo of petrol and benzene do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day no... Falling of the ship Polemis was being unloaded of its cargo of,! Appellant liable the charterparty is immaterial of its cargo of petrol and benzine when a plank the... – not Good Law the defendant hired ( chartered ) a ship docked. To our privacy policy and terms the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely.! Of fault and the best of luck to you on your LSAT.... Wright 's firm approval of re Polemis case the defendant had been cargo! Asquith L.J the re Polemis test plank was negligently dropped a large plank wood. Old Approach – not Good Law servant of Furness scrutton LJ: “ presence! Sydney Harbour in October 1951 Court of Appeal, 1921 audio summary V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone )! ) docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 in-house Law team of your email.! If you do not cancel your Study Buddy for the 14 day trial your. Of directness and held appellant liable a trading name operated by Jack Kinsella, Withy & Co. 1921. Your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card be! Lsat exam were too remote and this issue was appealed ship when they negligently dropped a large of!