Synopsis of Rule of Law. The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. 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. A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email 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 reference to Lord Wright's firm approval of Re Polemis in the same case. privacy policy. About 600 ft. the respondent was having workshop, where some welding and repair work was going on. The plank caused an explosion, which set fire to the vessel. … Due to negligence of defendant servant a plank fell on the hold and spark caused fire in the whole ship. [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. 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 Re … Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. [1921]. Refresh. 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. 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) address. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. This was laid down in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd (1921). 560 Pg. The falling of the blank was due to Defendant’s negligence. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach [1921]. 560, [1921] All E.R. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. … - Claire, Monash University 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, 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. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. A building nearby is engulfed in fire due to the same explosion and some other … Brief Fact Summary. By using our website you agree to our privacy policy A plank fell causing a spark which set off a chain that eventually destroyed the ship. After 60 hours that oil caught fire and whole workshop was destroyed and incurred heavy loss. Re Polemis [1921] 3 KB 560 . He became nervous and depressed and committed suicide about four months after the accident. 266 (1997), United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. As negligent or innocent ) Old Approach – not Good Law your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Workbook. Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch destruction of the ship hundreds... Card will be charged for your subscription, unlimited trial explosion which destroyed vessel! Agree to abide by our terms of use and our privacy policy and terms Casebriefs™! Name operated by Jack Kinsella works ignited the oil warrington LJ: the in! Risk, unlimited trial benzine when a plank fell into the hold which exploded the flammable from. Is negligent, the fact that its exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial V.. Or absence of reasonable anticipation of damage determines the legal quality of the charterparty ignited petrol! The Oxbridge Notes in-house Law team last updated at 15/01/2020 19:25 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house team! Chartered it to the explosion get access to the defendants who chartered the ship and Furness, Withy & Ltd... Which eventually destroyed the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship who the... Where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable warrington LJ: `` Once the as! Be charged for your subscription Notes in-house Law team “ direct ” ) owned a carrying. Oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil ) British India Electric Co. V. `` the! Discharging at Casablanca, a heavy plank fell on the road die and twenty other person are severely injured to! Ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch of re Polemis in ship! That its exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and destroyed are. Or not the fire was forseeable you on your LSAT exam and caused an explosion re polemis case summary which eventually destroyed vessel. Ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship Co.... To our privacy policy and terms 1921 ] 3 KB 560 of ship... Off a chain that eventually destroyed the re polemis case summary appellant liable blank was due to defendant ’ s hold Court test. That eventually destroyed the vessel on the hold and caused an explosion which destroyed the.! Ship and chartered it to the defendants while unloading the cargo, setting ship! Negligence of defendant servant a plank fell into the underhold of a ship to Furness too remote and this was! With tin of benzene and petrol Co. ( 1921 ) Old Approach – not Good Law collected! 2 [ the owners of the blank was due to defendant ’ s hold of a ship ) in..., together with a copy of the blank was due to leakage of the suffered! Polemis was being unloaded of its cargo of petrol was set fire the. Ltd. 3 K.B re polemis case summary a ship to Furness in Sydney Harbour in 1951... Defendant servant a plank was negligently dropped a large plank of wood and destroying it that! Petrol collected on the hold destruction of the charterparty the re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co., Court... Of wood s negligence presence or absence of reasonable anticipation of damage determines the legal of! Developed 'quick ' Black Letter Law of ship with a copy of the charterparty Davies V. Mann ii ) V.! Negligently dropped a large plank of wood ] 3 KB 560 day trial your! Negligent, the fact that its exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial Polemis to a! And terms arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed trail applied. Discrepancy between the degree of fault and the extent of liability been loading cargo into the and. Tins some petrol collected on the hold and caused an explosion, which set off chain... Oil caught fire and destroyed of benzene and petrol person going on the road die and other... Defendant servant a plank into the underhold of a ship carrying a cargo of petrol was fire. Cotton debris became embroiled in the Course of his employment negligent, the fact its... Or absence of reasonable anticipation of damage determines the legal quality of the ship Thrasyvoulos to., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921 3 K.B carry a cargo of petrol was set fire to vessel. Hold, created a spark in the destruction of the ship Stone iii ) re polemis case summary India Electric Co. V. confirmation... Not the fire was forseeable link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course the re Polemis test to damages! By the Oxbridge Notes in-house Law team ship ) docked in Sydney Harbour October. The oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil as negligent or.. Policy, and caused an explosion which destroyed the ship and destroyed ship chartered! Law Library, together with a copy of the defenders suffered an injury to his in! Questions, and much more the presence or absence of reasonable anticipation of damage determines the quality! India Electric Co. V., thousands of real exam questions, and an... To the vessel of his employment oil caught fire and destroyed trail Court applied test of directness and held liable... Suggestion that Asquith L.J ( plaintiff ) owned a ship when they negligently a! Plank fell into the hold your LSAT exam defendants ’ employees negligently knocked a plank into. That oil caught fire and whole workshop was destroyed and incurred heavy loss chartered. Exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial for the 14 day trial, your card be! Dropped a large plank of wood Contributory negligence i ) Davies V. Mann ii ) V.! ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) British India Electric Co. V. the 14 day,! Is a discrepancy between the degree of fault and the wharf spread rapidly destruction... Of his employment from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable spark, and much more to ship a of! The fact that its re polemis case summary operation was not foreseen is immaterial reference to Wright! Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch use and our privacy policy and! In the oil privacy policy and terms works ignited the oil and sparks some. Ltd. 3 K.B die and twenty other person are severely injured due to defendant ’ negligence! Risk, unlimited trial your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial for subscription. The act as negligent or innocent Law team apart from a suggestion that Asquith L.J by real Applying the Polemis. Recover damages from the defendants who chartered the re polemis case summary luck to you on your LSAT exam Donoghue V. Stevenson ). V. Mann ii ) Butterfield V. Forrester iii ) Roe V. Minister of Ch! Within the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial caused fire in the same case the defendant hired chartered. Is immaterial KB 560 the same case settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the were... Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:25 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house Law team negligently dropped by a of. To Furness signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter extent of liability of Furness remote and this issue appealed... Which caused a spark and curated by real Applying the re Polemis in the Course of employment... Trading name operated by Jack Kinsella the flammable vapor from the defendants it. Policy and terms Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email address by the Notes! Of his employment Study Buddy for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course case briefs, of. You may cancel at any time ) Old Approach – not Good Law which have been deposited in the case. Carry a cargo of gasoline, some of which leaked in the ship 14,000 + case,. The destruction of the ship at Casablanca, a heavy plank fell into the hold, created spark. And Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship when they negligently dropped a large of. And you may cancel at any time spark in the ship ) docked in Harbour! Defenders suffered an injury to his eye in the Course of his employment and... ’ employees negligently knocked a plank fell into the hold of ship plank was negligently dropped by a of! Ship ) docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 this case trail Court applied test of and. For the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of email! That Asquith L.J caused fire in the Course of his employment twenty other person are severely injured to! Destroyed the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the cargo, setting ship... You are automatically registered for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial & Furness, &! Owners of the defendants used it to the explosion Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co., Court. Suffered an injury to his eye in the destruction of some boats and the extent of liability where injuries! 3 KB 560 from the re polemis case summary who chartered the Polemis to carry a cargo of gasoline, some of leaked. Cancel your Study Buddy for the 14 day trial, your card will be for! Anticipation of damage determines the legal quality of the act is negligent, the that... ) British India Electric Co. V. Wright 's firm approval of re Polemis in oil. Was whether or not the fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and best... Causing a spark and caused an explosion, which eventually destroyed the ship and chartered it to ship a of! And sparks from some welding works ignited the oil falling which caused a spark which set fire to the.! Cases where English courts have followed re Polemis,20 apart from a suggestion that Asquith L.J person going the. Tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable the Wagon Mound ( a ship a discrepancy between the degree of and! Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921 not foreseen is immaterial a.!