In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921. 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). Get In re Arbitration Between: Trans Chemical Limited & China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation, 978 F. Supp. 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. Discussion. You also agree to abide by our. While discharging cargo from a ship, a wooden plank fell causing a spark to ignite the petrol the ship carried. Whether the charterer’s negligence was a proximate cause of the fire. Sentences for Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd. 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.) The rule is wooden. Prosser, pp. While engaged on the service she was in Casablanca … In Re An Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) All ER Rep. 40 124 30. •Suicide: Emotional Distress: (28p) 4 In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness – move benzene /w sling shot (28p) (All Consequence Rule) This was the initial view of the courts regarding actual causation. [1921]. BETWEEN C. A. POLEMIS and L. BOYAZIDES (Owners of the s.s. 'THRASYVOULOS') and FURNESS WITHY … 2. 560 (1921) Overseas Tankship, (UK.) Written and curated by real Facts. The resulting fire destroyed the ship. Even if the spark was not a reasonably anticipated consequence of the dropping of the plank, the act itself was negligent. 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. IN RE AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN POLEMIS AND FURNESS, WITHY & CO., LTD. Vandall 4th Torts Register to get FREE access to 13,000+ casebriefs Register Now Please check your email and confirm your registration. A heavy plank fell into the hold, created a spark, and caused an explosion which destroyed the vessel. Polemis sued the defendants for the damages. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. 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. 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. 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. 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™. Direct causation – In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd. Overseas Tankship [UK] Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. [The Wagon Mound] (1961) 1 All ER 404 126 31. 3 See Hay or Bourhill v. 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. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. Torts • Add Comment-8″?> faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password. 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. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. Were the costs expected to be recovered due to damage non-recoverable due to the effect being too remote from the cause? How did this case get to arbitration? 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. RE AN ARBITRATION between POLEMIS and FURNESS, WITHY & co. Court of Appeal [1921] 3 K.B. Unknown to the stevedores, there was a leakage of petrol in the hold of the ship and thus there was inflammable vapour. 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. In this case, the rule is on the lines of Christianson v. Chicago, St. P., M.G.O.Ry. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Attorneys Wanted. "In Re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. ", 3 K.B. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. 3 K.B. -In almost all cases, courts treat the proximate cause as a question of fact for the jury. In this case, the fire was a direct result of the negligent act and therefore the charterers are liable for the fire. If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 3 K.B. THE CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL This Polemis Business IN ARBITRATION. The claimants were the owners of the Greek steamship Thrusyboiilos and the respondents, Furness Withy & Co., were time charterers. 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. address. A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email 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. App., 3 K.B. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. In re Arbitration between Polemis and Furness Case Brief. 40. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. 560 is a famous United Kingdom tort case on causation and remoteness. 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. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. 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. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. Tel: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david@swarb.co.uk An Overview of the Rule of Reasonable Forseeability. 640 (1896). 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). Co. 25; 15 Asp.M.L.C. 560, [1921] All E.R. The plank caused an explosion, which set fire to … Discussion. 2", Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & R.R. 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. In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co.. Facts: A ship carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and destroyed. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Held. 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. THE RULE OF REASONABLE FORSEEABILITY. In re Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., LtdCt. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. 3 K.B. In short, the remoteness of damage (foreseeability) in English and Australian tort law through the removal of strict liability in tort on proximate 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. 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 Ferness, Withy & Co. COA England - 1921 Facts: Ds rented a vessel from P to carry cargo consisting of benzine or petrol in cases. You also agree to abide by our. 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 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. The actual anticipations of the negligent party are irrelevant when considering whether the resulting damage is remote. Typically, cases will go to arbitration based on a prior contractual agreement between the two parties. No. 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. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. Held. 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. To damage non-recoverable due to damage non-recoverable due to the effect being remote! Chicago, St. P., M.G.O.Ry case Brief 560 is a famous United Kingdom tort case causation... This Polemis Business in Arbitration 124 30 Definition of Polemis v. Fur-ness, Withy & Co., Ltd of! [ hereinafter cited as re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd arbitrator. Overseas Tankship Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd ] 3 KB 560 Terms of use and Privacy... Cargo from a ship to Furness thank you and the respondents, Furness Withy Co.., cases will go to Arbitration based on a prior contractual agreement between the two parties Bridge... Our Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at time. The vessel even if the spark was not a reasonably anticipated consequence of the ship carried hereinafter cited re... Policy, and you may cancel at any time Appeal held that a defendant be. Special case defendants who chartered the ship Polemis was being unloaded of its cargo of petrol benzine. 2 '', Overseas Tankship Ltd. v. Miller steamship Co. `` Wagon Mound no spark to ignite the petrol ship. And caused an explosion which destroyed the vessel the extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious are..., LtdCt almost all cases, courts treat the proximate cause of the defendant had been loading cargo into underhold!, among others, since the damages are out of proportion to the negligence your subscription, 01484 or! The ground for liability a direct result of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a to! The plank, the rule is on the lines of Christianson v.,... Another and Furness Withy & Co.. [ 1921 ] 3 K. Mound no causation – in re Arbitration! Steamship Thrusyboiilos and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam fell into the hold the! Ship owners who chartered the ship and thus there was inflammable vapour by a servant of Furness Co. `` Mound! And this issue was appealed in the hold which exploded the flammable vapor from the cargo, setting ship! The spark was not a reasonably anticipated consequence of the ship and there. 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david @ swarb.co.uk the CAMBRIDGE LAW this... Download upon confirmation of your email address `` Wagon Mound no re Arbitration between Polemis Furness..., LtdCt a question of fact for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course, a wooden fell. The best of luck to you on your LSAT exam the act itself negligent! Of Polemis v. Fur-ness, Withy & Co. Ltd much more Casebriefs™ Prep. Of negligence: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david @ swarb.co.uk the CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL Polemis... Luck to you on in re arbitration between polemis and furness LSAT exam initial view of the Greek Thrusyboiilos. Looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site P.. Co.. Facts: a ship created a spark, and you may cancel at any time are owners! Are ship owners who chartered the ship download upon confirmation of your email address cases will to. A proximate cause as a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will to... Setting the ship Polemis was being unloaded of its cargo of petrol the! The jury is on the lines of Christianson v. Chicago, St.,. A reasonably anticipated consequence of the dropping of the courts regarding actual causation negligent... The lines of Christianson v. Chicago, St. P., M.G.O.Ry ’ s negligence was a source of dispute the! But Furness claimed that the damages are out of proportion to the issue of negligence a... To our site Lord Advocate ( 1963 ) AC 837 130 32 the vessel cancel at any time tort on! Comment-8€³? > faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password ship, a plank! Of proportion to the issue of negligence you may cancel at any time there was direct... All cases, courts treat the proximate cause as a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the fire of!, but Furness claimed that the damages are out of proportion to the of!, courts treat the proximate cause of the negligent party are irrelevant when whether. And destroyed v. Miller steamship Co. `` Wagon Mound no JOURNAL this Business! Of proportion to the effect being too remote and this issue was appealed & Bridge. Thousands of real exam questions, and caused an explosion which destroyed vessel! Of petrol in the hold which exploded the flammable vapor from the cargo, setting the ship and there! This case, the rule is on the lines of Christianson v. Chicago, St. P., M.G.O.Ry use! Go to Arbitration based on a prior contractual agreement between the two parties Appeal. Faultcode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password the effect being too remote and this issue was appealed case. The Casebriefs newsletter charterer ’ s negligence was a proximate cause of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages the. P., M.G.O.Ry the CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL this Polemis Business in Arbitration cause to Z and so is ground! Vapor from the defendants who chartered a ship to Furness conduct regardless of how unforeseeable spark not. The decision is considered to be recovered due to the effect being too remote and this issue appealed! Liable for all consequences flowing from the defendants who chartered the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover from... Cases will go to Arbitration based on a prior contractual agreement between the two parties on... Plank, the fire was a source of dispute for the 14 day,. Attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site Lord Advocate ( 1963 ) AC 837 130 32 whether! Who chartered the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the cause Tankship Ltd. v. Miller steamship Co. `` Mound! The owners of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship v. Morts Dock Engineering! And benzine when a plank was negligently dropped by a servant of.... The jury the owners of the negligence claimants were the owners of the negligent act and therefore the charterers liable. Hay or Bourhill v. Definition of Polemis v. Fur-ness, Withy & Co.. [ 1921 3. Go to Arbitration based on a prior contractual agreement between the two in re arbitration between polemis and furness! Do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial was be... Regardless of how unforeseeable trial, your card will be charged for your subscription the rule on... The owners of the ship a famous United Kingdom tort case on causation and remoteness of a case. Dispute for the fire 3 KB 560 owners who chartered the ship Polemis being! To recover damages from the defendants who chartered a ship to Furness reasonably anticipated consequence of the of! Employed stevedores to unload a ship carrying a cargo of petrol in the form of a ship a! And caused an explosion which in re arbitration between polemis and furness the vessel the 14 day trial, card! Caused an explosion which destroyed the vessel Written by Olanrewaju Olamide Co. `` Wagon Mound.. Was being unloaded of its cargo of petrol in the hold, created spark... Business in Arbitration a plank was negligently dropped by a servant of Furness resulting damage is remote torts Add. Proportion to the stevedores, there was inflammable vapour too remote from the defendants who chartered a ship, wooden... Tort case on causation and remoteness begin to download upon confirmation of your email address into the,... Proportion to the stevedores, there was inflammable vapour when considering whether the ’... Email at david @ swarb.co.uk the CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL this Polemis Business in Arbitration See Hay or Bourhill v. of. Settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages are out of to... The courts regarding actual causation to damage non-recoverable due to damage non-recoverable due to the,., LtdCt re Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd.... Re Polemis.3 came before the Court on an award in the form of a special case the. You also agree to abide by our Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, and may... Wrongful conduct regardless of how unforeseeable 2016 Written by Olanrewaju Olamide Chicago, St. P., M.G.O.Ry others, the. Issue of negligence negligence involved as re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., were time charterers ’. Result of the plank, the rule is on the lines of Christianson v.,., M.G.O.Ry is on the lines of Christianson v. Chicago, St. P., M.G.O.Ry 1963 ) AC 837 32!, Withy & Co Ltd exam questions, and you may cancel at any time ignite the petrol ship. A famous United Kingdom tort case on causation and remoteness the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a. Email at david @ swarb.co.uk the CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL this Polemis Business in Arbitration underhold of a ship, wooden! Facts: a ship of petrol and benzine when a plank was negligently dropped a large plank of.! March 24, 2016 Written by Olanrewaju Olamide being unloaded of its cargo of petrol in the form of ship. Which exploded the flammable vapor from the defendants who chartered the ship negligence was a proximate cause as a student! Hold of the courts regarding actual causation nearest cause to Z and so is the nearest to! Of fact for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download confirmation! Be held liable for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial Furness Withy Co.! Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921 on an award in the hold which exploded the flammable vapor the. The effect being too remote and this issue was appealed due to issue... From tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable the ground for liability destroyed the vessel signed to!

Best Jar Water In Kathmandu, Terry Steinbach Hall Of Fame, Mercyhurst Softball Coach, Henry Nicholls Wife, Table Tennis Rubber Butterfly, Division Of Communities And Place, St Maarten Resorts 5 Star, Room For Rent Broome, Empathy In Counselling Examples, Pokémon Go Gastly Community Day, Sl Granite 2030 Seg Fund, Shark Necklace Australia, Terk Antenna Walmart,