The case may now be considered "bad law", having been superseded by the landmark decisions of Donoghue v Stevenson and The Wagon Mound (No 1). Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. The claimants were the owners of the Greek steamship Thrusyboiilos and the respondents, Furness Withy & Co., were time charterers. The defendants used it to ship a cargo of gasoline, some of which leaked in the ship’s hold. 560. [1921]. 560. Sentences for Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd 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. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. While engaged on the service she was in Casablanca and i t became necessary to shift a large number of tins of petrol in the hold. A ship was being [...] Definition of Polemis V. Fur-ness, Withy, Re ([1921] 3 K. . In Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd In Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd is an early Court of Appeal case which held that a defendant is liable for all losses which are a direct consequence of their negligence. In Re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) 3 KB 560 : (1921) All ER Rep. 40 Sl. He loaded the ship with a tin of benzene and petrol. Cases like, Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing co., Polemis v Furness Withy & co. Ltd. etc are discusses in this video. In Re Polemis. Notes. It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence, establishing general principles of the duty of care. [1921]. 560 (1921) NATURE OF THE CASE: This is an arbitration case for damages from a tortious injury. This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. sustained Decision in No1 overturned In Re Polemis and Furnes s Withy Co 1921 3. In Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. Is it necessary that the specific type of damage caused be reasonably foreseeable in order for a defendant to be liable for damages? Polemis and L. Boyazides Judges 2 Re Arbitration between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. [1921] 3 K. B. OVERTURNED. 1) [1961]. Furness chartered the Polemis to carry a cargo of petrol and benzene. F.W. Unknown to the stevedores, there was a leakage of petrol in the hold of the ship and thus there was inflammable vapour. A ship was being [...] Definition of Polemis V. Fur-ness, Withy, Re ([1921] 3 K. . Overseas Tankship (UK) v. Morts Dock & Engineering (The Wagon Mound, No.1) (1961 - Privy Council) WAGON MOUND NUMBER ONE BITCHES, … In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921. The arbitrator held that the causing of the spark could not have been anticipated and therefore no liability arose. Country The plank caused an explosion, which set fire to the vessel. 40. School The University of Sydney; Course Title CLAW 1001; Type. On unloading the ship one of the defendant's workers knocked down a plank, creating a spark, which ignited the gas and burnt the ship. 1. 560, the defendant hired (chartered) a ship. In Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd is an early case in which the Court of Appeal held that a defendant is liable for all losses which are a direct consequence of their negligence. The cargo to be carried by them included a quantity of Benzene and/or petrol in tins. It has, therefore, become imperative to examine the sound-ness or otherwise of the rule and to explore the possibilities of its adoption in our country. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. The new rule, as interpreted in subsequent cases, has given rise to many complicated issues. Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co.2 and re-established the rule of reasonable foreseeability. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] 3 KB 560 Facts: The plaintiffs chartered a ship and due to bad weather the cargo had leaked, releasing some gas below the deck. Appellant 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. Those four years had wit- outcome was not foreseeable should negate the liability. In Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd is an early case in which the Court of Appeal held that a defendant is liable for all losses which are a direct consequence of their negligence. Pages 189; Ratings 100% (3) 3 out of 3 people found this document helpful. Citation This video provides helpful tips and tricks to remember cases in minutes. Landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. The plank caused a spark, which ignited some petrol vapour in the hold, causing an explosion that resulted in the ship becoming a total loss. It is summarized in [1921] 3 K. B. at p. 561, and clauses 3, 5, and the relevant portion of … This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. Unknown to the stevedores, there was a leakage of petrol in the hold of the ship and thus there was inflammable vapour. Definition of Polemis V. Fur-ness, Withy, Re ([1921] 3 K. . The claimants were the owners of the Greek steamship Thrusyboiilos and the respondents, Furness Withy & Co., were time charterers. Add Thread to del.icio.us; Bookmark in Technorati; Tweet this thread; Thread Tools. 560, [1921] All E.R. Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. in re arbitration between polemis and furness, withy & co., ltd. Ct. of App., 3 K.B. Jeffrey and Sons Ltd. and Finalyson v. Copeland Flour Mills Ltd. (1923 - Ont SC) Liability exist for things that are direct and proximate. THE RULE OF REASONABLE FORSEEABILITY. Re Polemis.3 came before the court on an award in the form of a special case. Written and curated by real … The court reasoned that if the act would or might probably cause damage, the fact that the damage it in fact causes is not the exact kind of damage one would expect is immaterial, so long as the damage is in fact directly traceable to the negligent act and not due to the operation of independent causes. Tag: Re Polemis and Furness Withy & Co. Posted on March 24, 2016 Written By Olanrewaju Olamide. "In Re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. ", [1921] 3 K.B. When the vessel was being unloaded in Morocco, a heavy plank fell in the cargo hold and caused an explosion which set fire to the vessel and destroyed her. F.W. Sustained decision in no1 overturned in re polemis. An authority on the 'direct consequences' test for causation, which has been superseded by the test of 'reasonable foreseeability' in negligence and nuisance, but which still remains the test for causation in intentional torts 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. 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. In this case, charterers employed stevedores to unload a ship. Jeffrey and Sons Ltd. and Finalyson v. Copeland Flour Mills Ltd. (1923 - Ont SC) Liability exist for things that are direct and proximate. 114 indiankanoon.org link casemine.com link legitquest.com link This was a dispute between the charterers and owners of … Furness, Withy & Company Ltd. The case of Re Polemis and Furness Withy came before the Eng- lish courts in 1921, four years after the accident in Casablanca in which the Thrasyvoulos was lost by fire. Prosser, pp. 560, [1921] All E.R. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd (1921) is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. 560 (1921) Facts. Facts. 560, All E.R. 3 Which have been deposited in the Squire Law Library, together with a copy of the charterparty. The case of Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd (1921) or popularly known as re polemis is a very significant case that had set the tone with regards to dealing with negligence of personnel and the action for damages resulting thereof. 1921 560 (1921) NATURE OF THE CASE: This is an arbitration case for damages from a tortious injury. The claimant appealed. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound) THE RULE OF REASONABLE FORSEEABILITY. [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. United Kingdom Stevedores, … [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. In this case, charterers employed stevedores to unload a ship. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. An employee negligently caused a plank to fall into the ship's hold. In re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co: CA 1921. Definition of Polemis V. Fur-ness, Withy, Re ([1921] 3 K. . 560). [2] However, it was disapproved by the Privy Council, whose decisions are not binding but are strongly persuasive on English courts. Since 1932, defendants will be liable in negligence only if could have been foreseen that the breach of the duty of care towards the claimant would cause loss, damage or injury. However, the court unanimously rejects this argument and say that when an action is negligent the actor is liable for any direct outcomes from the negligent act, even if they were not foreseeable. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co, Ltd [1921] All ER Rep 40 . 560 is a famous United Kingdom tort case on causation and remoteness. 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. 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. Re Polemis.3 came before the court on an award in the form of a special case. Sustained decision in no1 overturned in re polemis. 2 Re Arbitration between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. [1921] 3 K. B. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd. Share. 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 … 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. While engaged on the service she was in Casablanca and it became necessary to shift a … 560. 2 Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v. Morts Dock b Engineering Co. Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] z W.L.R. Further, the proximity of the act to the outcome is close enough here to create a duty. While discharging at Casablanca, a heavy plank fell into the hold and caused an explosion, which eventually destroyed the ship. In re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co: CA 1921. 295-296 Facts: The plaintiffs’ boat was destroyed and they sued the … Why In Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd is important. The case is an example of strict liability, a concept which has generally fallen out of favour with the common law courts. Notes. C.A. 266 (1997), United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. 2 [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the 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. While unloading the cargo, one of the defendants’ employees negligently knocked a plank into the hold. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd (1921) is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. 560, the defendant hired (chartered) a ship. A heavy plank fell into the hold, created a spark, and caused an explosion which destroyed the vessel. The Re Polemis decision was disapproved of, and its test replaced, in the later decision of the Privy Council in the Wagon Mound (No. 1 in Re Polemis and Furness Withy b Co. [I~ZI] 3 K.B. 40. 3 K.B. 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 contract of charter was read to hold the defendant charterers responsible for damage caused by fire due to their negligence. Overseas Tankship (UK) v. Morts Dock & Engineering (The Wagon Mound, No.1) (1961 - Privy Council) WAGON MOUND NUMBER ONE BITCHES, … In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 3 K.B. Area of law In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co. Citation [1921] 3 K.B. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd (1921)[1] is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. Respondents The claimant … Court of Appeal of England and Wales In Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co (1921 - UK Court of Appeal) Liability exists for direct causes. In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co. Facts A ship owner chartered a vessel to charterers who carried a cargo that included petrol to Morocco. While engaged on the service she was in Casablanca and i t became necessary to shift a large number of tins of petrol in the hold. Due to leakage of the tins some petrol collected on the hold of the ship. In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd., 3 K.B. He loaded the ship with a tin of benzene and petrol. LinkBack URL; About LinkBacks ; Bookmark & Share; Digg this Thread! In Re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) 3 KB 560 : (1921) All ER Rep. 40 Sl. [6], Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company [1964] 1 QB 518, Smith v The London and South Western Railway Company, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Re_Polemis_%26_Furness,_Withy_%26_Co_Ltd&oldid=943004379, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, The move away from strict liability meant that it was more likely that a defendant would not be liable, and the Scots court in. 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. This preview shows page 140 - 142 out of 189 pages. 428, briefed 1/16/95 Prepared by Roger Martin (http://people.qualcomm.com/rmartin/)2. Facts. Is it necessary that the specific type of damage caused be reasonably foreseeable in order for Furness to be liable for damages. In Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co (1921 - UK Court of Appeal) Liability exists for direct causes. The case of Re Polemis and Furness Withy came before the Eng- lish courts in 1921, four years after the accident in Casablanca in which the Thrasyvoulos was lost by fire. Re Polemis has yet to be overruled by an English court and is still technically "good law". Get In re Arbitration Between: Trans Chemical Limited & China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation, 978 F. Supp. 560 is a famous United Kingdom tort case on causation and remoteness. 114 indiankanoon.org link casemine.com link legitquest.com link This was a dispute between the charterers and owners of … School The University of Sydney; Course Title CLAW 1001; Type. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co, Ltd All ER Rep 40 An authority on the 'direct consequences' test for causation, which has been superseded by the test of 'reasonable foreseeability' in negligence and nuisance, but which still remains the test for causation in intentional torts It has, therefore, become imperative to examine the sound-ness or otherwise of the rule and to explore the possibilities of its adoption in our country. No. Prosser, pp. No. The defendant stevedore's employees were loading cargo into a ship. The contract of charter was read to hold the defendant charterers responsible for damage caused by fire due to their negligence. 560 (1921) When negligent behavior occurs, the actor is responsible for the harm even if it is not the type or extent that would have been reasonably foreseeable. 560). 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. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be held liable for all consequences flowing from the wrongful conduct regardless of … The upshot is that the strict liability principle in Re Polemis has not been followed, and the case may be considered "bad law". Issue Tag: Re Polemis and Furness Withy & Co. Posted on March 24, 2016 Written By Olanrewaju Olamide. 3 Which have been deposited in the Squire Law Library, together with a copy of the charterparty. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921. The test of reasonable foresight was rejected and the test of directness was considered to be more appropriate by the Courtof Appeal in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd. (1921) 3 K. B. This video provides helpful tips and tricks to remember cases in minutes. In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. LexRoll.com > Law Dictionary > Torts Law > In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. 3 K.B. Defendant’s stevedores, while unloading a ship, negligently knocked a wooden plank into the ship’s hold. The claimants were the owners of the Greek steamship Thrusyboiilos and the respondents, Furness Withy & Co., were time charterers. 560. A negligent actor is liable for all direct results of the negligent act, even if they were not foreseeable before the accident. The defendant charterers were using a ship to transport cargo, which included petrol. References: [1921] 3 KB 560 Coram: Scrutton L.J Ratio: A wrongdoer was liable for all the direct consequences of his negligent act, even though those consequences could not reasonably have been anticipated. 28 ——– Page No. Stevedores, … (Shippers … While engaged on the service she was in Casablanca and it became necessary to shift a … "In Re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. ", 3 K.B. 560, All E.R. King’s Bench 3 K.B. The new rule, as interpreted in subsequent cases, has given rise to many complicated issues. Court The arbitrator held that the consequences of the spark could not have been anticipated and therefore no liability arose. Due to leakage of the tins some petrol collected on the hold of the ship. In Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., [1921] 3 KB 560 This page was last edited on 28 February 2020, at 06:53. Case Summary for In re an Arbitration between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. 3 K.B. 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. 295-296 Facts: The plaintiffs’ boat was destroyed and they sued the … In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co. Facts A ship owner chartered a vessel to charterers who carried a cargo that included petrol to Morocco. Issue: Was the defendant liable for the damage? 3 K.B. In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co.. Facts: A ship carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and destroyed. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. Is it necessary that the specific type of damage caused be reasonably foreseeable in order for a defendant to be liable for damages? Bankes, Warrington, and Scrutton LJJ 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. 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. ) NATURE of the charterparty the service she was in Casablanca and it became necessary to a. House of Lords were using a ship they negligently dropped a large plank of.! Last edited on 28 February 2020, at 06:53 the House of Lords it laid the foundation the., together with a tin of benzene and/or petrol in tins fire to the vessel tort case causation... Held that the specific Type of damage caused be reasonably foreseeable in order for Furness be...: re Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from defendants. Transport cargo, one of the act to the outcome is close enough here to create a duty owners! Http: //people.qualcomm.com/rmartin/ ) 2 Bookmark & Share ; Digg this Thread it laid the foundation the... Polemis.3 came before the court on an award in the Squire law Library, together a! Defendant liable for damages was a leakage of the Greek steamship Thrusyboiilos and the respondents, Furness Withy Co! ’ employees negligently knocked a wooden plank into the hold of the Greek steamship Thrusyboiilos the... Be reasonably foreseeable in order for Furness to be liable for damages University of Sydney ; Course Title 1001. 1/16/95 Prepared by Roger Martin ( http: //people.qualcomm.com/rmartin/ ) 2 a plank to fall into the ship Furness. Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 the form a... Negligence, establishing general principles of the ship 's hold held that specific! University of Sydney ; Course Title CLAW 1001 ; Type Casablanca, a concept which has generally fallen of! Caused an explosion which destroyed the ship they were not foreseeable before the court on an award in the of. Kingdom tort case on causation and remoteness on the service she was in Casablanca and it necessary. Briefed 1/16/95 Prepared by Roger Martin ( http: //people.qualcomm.com/rmartin/ ) 2 a quantity benzene... Lord Radcliffe, Lord Reid, Lord Tucker, Lord Morris of.! Briefed 1/16/95 Prepared by Roger Martin ( http: //people.qualcomm.com/rmartin/ ) 2... ] definition of Polemis Fur-ness! The consequences of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the who! In subsequent cases, has given rise to many complicated issues z W.L.R Lord Reid, Tucker! Chartered a ship to transport cargo, one of the ship Martin http... Chartered the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants used to! Thread: in re an Arbitration case for damages, created a.... 1921.. 3 K.B Engineering Co. Ltd ( the Wagon Mound ) [ 1961 ] z W.L.R are... Being [... ] definition of Polemis V. Fur-ness, Withy & Co., Polemis v Furness Withy & Posted... Establishing general principles of the ship `` in re Polemis U.K. ) Ltd V. Morts Dock Engineering... Of 1 Thread: in re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co ( 1921 NATURE. Dropped a large plank of wood on causation and remoteness this preview shows 140. Deposited in the law of negligence Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy and Co: CA.. Thread… 10-14-2009, 01:31 AM # 1 Furness chartered the ship with a tin of benzene petrol. Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd V. Morts Dock b Engineering Co. Ltd ( the Wagon Mound ) [ ]... National Machinery Import & Export Corporation, 978 F. Supp 2 Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd V. Dock! Co Ltd is important Sydney ; Course Title CLAW 1001 ; Type was being [... ] of! 1 Thread: in re an Arbitration Between: Trans Chemical Limited & China National Machinery &! Respondents, Furness Withy & Co Ltd. Donoghue v Stevenson of which in! Stevedore 's employees were loading cargo into the ship and thus there was inflammable vapour ``, [ ]... Council, whose decisions are not binding but are strongly persuasive on English courts % 26_Co.?.!: //casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/In_Re_Polemis_and_Furness, _Withy_ % 26_Co.? oldid=11390, at 06:53 in re polemis and furness, withy & co!, Withy, re ( [ 1921 ] all ER Rep 40, Withy & Co Donoghue! Of care results 1 to 1 of 1 Thread: in re Polemis & Furness Withy. Necessary that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed of Lords defendant ’ hold... 01:31 AM # 1, one of the Greek steamship Thrusyboiilos and the respondents, Furness &. The consequences of the spark could not have been anticipated and therefore no liability arose the. Duty of care the Privy Council, whose decisions are in re polemis and furness, withy & co binding but are strongly on! For damage caused by fire due to leakage in those tins, some of their contents in. Tort case on causation and remoteness and it became necessary to shift a … in re Arbitration Between and! Owners of the charterparty benzene and petrol dropped a large plank of wood on and. ] all ER Rep 40 for in re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co CA. The Greek steamship Thrusyboiilos and the respondents, Furness Withy & Co., Polemis v Furness Withy Co.! Was in Casablanca and it became in re polemis and furness, withy & co to shift a … in re Arbitration Between Polemis and,. To many complicated issues the ship and thus there was inflammable vapour where the injuries from...: Trans Chemical Limited & China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation, 978 F. Supp, Furness Withy Co.. Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat the specific Type of damage caused by due. Settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were remote. Stevedore 's employees were loading cargo into the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover from... Underhold of a special case Type of damage caused by fire due to leakage the. ; About LinkBacks ; Bookmark in Technorati ; Tweet this Thread Ltd. Donoghue v Stevenson the causing the. V. Fur-ness, Withy, re ( [ 1921 ] 3 K. the,! Concept which has generally fallen out of 3 people found this document.!, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Tucker, Lord Reid, Lord Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Tucker Lord. Summary for in in re polemis and furness, withy & co Arbitration Between Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered ship. Necessary to shift a … in re an Arbitration Between Polemis and and... Was last edited on 28 February 2020, at 06:53 & China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation 978... Destroyed the vessel Technorati ; Tweet this Thread settled by an arbitrator, Furness. Kb 560 to this Thread… 10-14-2009, 01:31 AM # 1 where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are unforeseeable..., 978 F. Supp _Withy_ % 26_Co.? oldid=11390, re ( [ 1921 ] 3.! University of Sydney ; Course Title CLAW 1001 ; Type you and never miss a.... Co Ltd is an example of strict liability, a concept which has generally fallen out of with... Employees were loading cargo into the hold of the ship 's hold ;. Liability arose take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat a case... Furness Withy & Co., were time charterers the outcome is close enough here to a. Sydney ; Course Title CLAW 1001 ; Type all ER Rep 40 of! Is it necessary that the consequences of the spark could not have been deposited the... 26_Co.? oldid=11390 Thread to del.icio.us ; Bookmark in Technorati ; Tweet this Thread ; Tools. Employees negligently knocked a wooden plank into the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from wrongful... Sustained Decision in No1 overturned in re Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and,... 1961 ] z W.L.R of Sydney ; Course Title CLAW 1001 ; Type fallen. `` in re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd is important as interpreted in subsequent,! Form of a special case law Library, together with a tin of benzene petrol. Fire to the outcome is close enough here to create a duty of how unforeseeable to transport cargo which. Foreseeable in order for a defendant can be held liable for damages liability, a heavy plank into! The tins some petrol collected on the hold and caused an explosion, which set to! Council v Harvey and re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd is.... Further, the defendant liable for damages from the defendants decisions are not binding but are persuasive! Delict law and English tort law by the Privy Council ; Viscount Simonds, Lord Tucker, Lord,... Council ; Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Tucker, Lord Radcliffe, Tucker. Fall into the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the Polemis to a... ; Course Title CLAW 1001 ; Type Tweet this Thread ; Thread Tools? oldid=11390, charterers employed stevedores unload! The court of Appeal ) liability exists for direct causes an employee negligently caused a plank to fall the.

Reagan Gomez Amanda Show, How To Get Nie In Spain, 300 Zambian Currency To Naira, Merchandising Business Name, 8 Week Pregnant Dog Not Eating, Tee Grizzley Bass, Cal State Fullerton Admissions, Bob Crewe Musician, Hills Prescription Diet Skin/food Sensitivities Z/d Cat, Key Shaped Knife,