It is submitted that the Wagon Mound No.1 ruling effectively curtailed the practical range of liability that had previously been established in Re Polemis and that Wagon Mound essentially overruled Re Polemis. re Polemis – any damage foreseen Wagon Mound 1 – type of harm Hughes v L Advocate – method unseen but PI Jolley v Sutton – method unseen but type foreseen Tremain v … 0000006931 00000 n endstream endobj 124 0 obj<> endobj 125 0 obj<>/Encoding<>>>>> endobj 126 0 obj<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB]>>/Type/Page>> endobj 127 0 obj<> endobj 128 0 obj<> endobj 129 0 obj<> endobj 130 0 obj<>stream 1 Re Polemis Question 13 Why did the plaintiffs in Wagon Mound No 1 concede from LAWS 6023 at The Chinese University of Hong Kong After consultation with charterers of Wagon Mound, MD Limited’s manager allowed The extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable. dicta expressing, not only agreement with the Wagon Mound principle, but also the opinion that Canadian courts are free to adopt it in preference to the Polemis rule.6 The object of this article is to examine the validity of these dicta. versal application. Company Registration No: 4964706. 405; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp. 4 [I9621 2 Q.B. 0000001144 00000 n *You can also browse our support articles here >. Case Summary Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No 1)" [1961] UKPC 1 is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence.The Privy Council held that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable. 413-414. 4. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. 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. <]>> Wagon Mound Case A vessel was chartered by appellant. xref 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? The plaintiffs are owners of ships docked at the wharf. %%EOF startxref Re Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority. 0000001712 00000 n Due to the defendant’s negligence, furnace oil was discharged into the bay causing minor injury to the plaintiff’s ships. The ship was being loaded at a port in Australia. 0000001893 00000 n Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was essential to the outcome, although not central to this case's legal significance. Reference this Lamb v Camden [1981] 2 All ER 408; McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd. [1969] 3 All ER 1621; Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388; Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155; Parsons v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd. [1978] QB 791; Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] 3 KB 560; Robinson v Post Office [1974] 1 WLR 1176 Wagon Mound (No. %PDF-1.6 %���� The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … As a matter of fact, it was found that it was not reasonable to expect anyone to know that oil i… The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. 143 0 obj<>stream 0000003089 00000 n The Wagon Mound … Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Owners of … Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] 3 KB 560 Facts: ... using The Wagon Mound test & approach in Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]: not necessary to distinguish between different physical injuries, because precise nature of injury does not need to be foreseeable; Egg-shell skull rule. Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law. Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in progress. H��UMo�8��W�V��Y��h��n� ��X(�����][B���%R��:�E�H�p����H *��4a��-�Lq \4����r��E�������)R�d�%g����[�i�I��qE���H�%��_D�lC�S�D�K4�,3$[%�����8���&'�w�gA{. Due to the carelessness of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water’s surface. It is inevitable that first consideration should be given to the case of In re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 K.B. In re Polemis 3 K.B. Looking for a flexible role? View In re Polemis and Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock .docx from LAW 402A at University Of Arizona. This is no more than the old Polemis principle [1921] 3 K.B. As it fell, the wood knocked against something else, which created a spark which served to ignite the surrounding petrol fumes, ultimately resulting in the substantial destruction of the ship. 0000009883 00000 n This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. The Wagon Mound (No. Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. See also James, Polemis: The Scotch’d Snake C19621 J.B.L. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. 5 There was, of course, the binding decision by the Court of Appeal in Re Polemis & Furniss. 146, 148. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. Cancel Unsubscribe. The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. Sparks from the welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. The Re Polemis decision was disapproved of, and its test replaced, in the later decision of the Privy Council in the Wagon Mound (No. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. 0000000016 00000 n 0000007122 00000 n 1) (1961) was the Australian tort appeal case from the New South Wales Supreme Court that went all the way to the Privy Council in London. WAGON MOUND II- RE POLEMIS REVIVED; NUISANCE REVISED H. J. Glasbeek* Ordinarily the term spectacular is an uncalled-for de- scription of a judicial decision, but the opinion rendered by the Privy Council in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. The Miller Steamship Co. Pty and Another' certainly deserves this epithet. 11. trailer Held: Re Polemis can no longer be regarded as good law. ... Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. 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. This development clearly favoured defendants by placing a foreseeability limitation on the extent of their potential liability. … Re polemis Kalam Zahrah. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. Overseas Tankship Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound, is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. Re Polemis was a 1921 decision of the English Court of Appeal. 1) [1961]. x�b```"9����cb�~w�G�#��g4�����V4��� ��L����PV�� 0000005064 00000 n of Re Potemis that eventually led to its removal from the law was based on historical misconceptions. to the Court of Appeal to refuse to follow Re Polemis on one or more of the grounds laid down in Young v. Bristol Aero. It will be shown below5 that although by the time of its " overruling" in The Wagon Mound (No. This oil drifted across the dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired. In 1961, in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd-, v. Morts. Re Polemis Case. A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote. Notably, this authority would go on to be replaced in the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. 0000005984 00000 n Re Polemis has yet to be overruled by an English court and is still technically "good law". The fact that the extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed irrelevant to such a determination. The Court of Appeal adopted a strict liability approach to causation and assessing liability here and subsequently held that the defendant was liable for all of the consequences that had resulted from their negligent actions. Charterers of Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour. 0000005153 00000 n The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. Held: Wagon Mound made no difference to a case such as this. The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. 1), Re Polemis had indeed become a " bad " case laying down an inappropriate rule, these misconceptions about why the rule 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. Hewitt and Greenland v. Chaplin. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Dock and Engineering Co. (usually called the Wagon Mound Case1) the Privy Council rejected the rule pronounced in In re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co.2 and re-established the rule of reasonable … 0000002997 00000 n The Privy Council dismissed as an error the principle that foreseeability ‘goes … 0000008055 00000 n Consequently, the court uses the reasonable foresight test in The Wagon Mound, as the Privy Council ruled that Re Polemis should not be considered good law. 0000004069 00000 n The Privy Council’s judgment effectively removed the application of strict liability from tort law that was established in Re Polemis (1921) below. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies!