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