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