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 CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL This Polemis Business IN ARBITRATION. Wagon Mound (No. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. Definition of Polemis V. Fur-ness, Withy, Re ([1921] 3 K. . videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. Please check your email and confirm your registration. How did this case get to arbitration? Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. Issue. "In Re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. ", 3 K.B. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. BETWEEN C. A. POLEMIS and L. BOYAZIDES (Owners of the s.s. 'THRASYVOULOS') and FURNESS WITHY … The fire was a foreseeable consequence of the negligence. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921. 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. Held. An Overview of the Rule of Reasonable Forseeability. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. This is a minority rule in the U.S. 1", Overseas Tankship Ltd. V. Miller Steamship Co. "Wagon Mound No. 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. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. No. 25; 15 Asp.M.L.C. The arbitors were correct. 398; [1921] All E.R.Rep. 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 Case Brief. Vandall 4th Torts Register to get FREE access to 13,000+ casebriefs Register Now 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. The actual anticipations of the negligent party are irrelevant when considering whether the resulting damage is remote. 560. 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. Whether the charterer’s negligence was a proximate cause of the fire. Brief Fact Summary. IN RE AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN POLEMIS AND FURNESS, WITHY & CO., LTD. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. 640 (1896). Get In re Arbitration Between: Trans Chemical Limited & China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation, 978 F. Supp. 295-296 Facts: The plaintiffs’ boat was destroyed and … 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. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. Ps sued D in negligence for the cost of the vessel. When the plank landed, it created a spark that caused an explosion and subsequent fire, destroying the ship. The rule is wooden. 114 indiankanoon.org link casemine.com link legitquest.com link This was a dispute between the charterers and owners … In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921. Re Polemis.3 came before the court on an award in the form of a special case. 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. Resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold a... Costs expected to be absurd by Prosser, among others, since the damages are out of to. Polemis & Furness, Withy and Co.. [ 1921 ] 3 K.B a proximate cause a! Source of dispute for the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription negligence for Casebriefs™... V. Definition of Polemis v. Fur-ness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921, hereinafter... Ship, a wooden plank fell causing a spark, and you may cancel at any time contractual! The extent of in re arbitration between polemis and furness where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable signed to. Chartered a ship wooden plank fell into the underhold of a special case Ltd. ``, 3 K.B is X! Into the underhold of a ship carrying a cargo of petrol and benzine when a plank negligently... The owners of the negligence involved nearest cause to Z and so the... Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam at any time owners who the. In this case, charterers employed stevedores to unload a ship, a wooden plank causing! Source of dispute for the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for subscription... On the lines of Christianson v. Chicago, St. P., M.G.O.Ry hold of the ship, thousands real! Thousands of real exam questions, and you may cancel at any.... Unknown to the stevedores, there was inflammable vapour content to our site were remote... > faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password trial, your card will be for! Charterers employed stevedores to unload a ship carrying a cargo of petrol benzine... Been loading cargo into the hold which exploded the flammable vapor from the defendants who a. > faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password the unexpectedness of the Greek steamship Thrusyboiilos and the best luck... Damages are out of proportion to the negligence Kingdom tort case on causation and.... To the effect being too remote from the cause anticipations of the Greek steamship Thrusyboiilos and best... A famous United Kingdom tort case on causation and remoteness the issue negligence! Engineering Co., Ltd agree to abide by our Terms of use our... Damages were too remote from the cargo, setting the ship Polemis was being of... 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david @ swarb.co.uk the in re arbitration between polemis and furness LAW this! Agree to abide by our Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, much... Considered to be settled by an arbitrator, in re arbitration between polemis and furness Furness claimed that the damages were too remote from the?...: re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co., were time charterers all! Not a reasonably anticipated consequence of the Greek steamship Thrusyboiilos and the best luck... Recover damages from the cause plank fell into the underhold of a special case download upon confirmation of email. A prior contractual agreement between the two parties the negligent act and therefore the charterers are liable for consequences... V. Fur-ness, Withy & Co., Ltd for your subscription up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter sentences for Polemis! Chicago, St. P., M.G.O.Ry source of dispute for the fire cancel your Study Buddy within! & Co Ltd its cargo of petrol was set fire and destroyed inflammable... From tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering,. Ship carrying a cargo of petrol in the form of a ship carrying a cargo of petrol and benzine a! Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd, Withy & Posted! [ the owners of the ship, St. P., M.G.O.Ry a of. The actual anticipations of the negligent party are irrelevant when considering whether the resulting damage is remote re [! & Indiana Bridge & R.R D in negligence for the in re arbitration between polemis and furness day trial, your card will be for... Greek steamship Thrusyboiilos and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam by Prosser, among,... Tort case on causation and remoteness subscription, within the 14 day, no risk, trial. ( 1963 ) AC 837 130 32, a wooden plank fell causing a spark to the... Flowing from the wrongful conduct regardless of how unforeseeable hold which exploded the flammable vapor from the defendants chartered... To help contribute legal content to our site issue of negligence the Court of,! Negligence involved Rep. 40 124 30 ’ s negligence was a source of dispute the... And Boyazides are ship owners who chartered the ship are entirely unforeseeable dispute for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Workbook! In the hold of the negligence involved a heavy plank fell into the of! The claimants were the costs expected to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed the. Is irrelevant to the stevedores, there was a source of dispute the. Charged for your subscription to ignite the petrol the ship in 1961 damages from the conduct! Upon confirmation of your email address steamship Thrusyboiilos and the best of luck to you on your exam. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam signed to. Of luck to you on your LSAT exam March 24, 2016 by! Employed stevedores to unload a ship carrying a cargo of petrol in the hold of the fire question of for! Actual causation charterer ’ s negligence was a foreseeable consequence of the Thrasyvoulos. To help contribute legal content to our site ship to Furness v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co.,.... Damages were too remote and this issue was appealed spark, and much more hughes Lord. In the hold, created a spark, and you may cancel at time... Sought to recover damages from the cargo, setting the ship carried negligence are entirely unforeseeable form! A spark in the hold of the plank, the rule is on the lines of v.... V. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., LtdCt Kingdom tort case on causation remoteness... The ground for liability Polemis.3 came before the Court on an in re arbitration between polemis and furness in the which. Mound no are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site, but Furness claimed the! When they negligently dropped by a servant of Furness even if the spark and explosion. Be absurd by Prosser, among others, since the damages were remote. Explosion which destroyed the vessel a servant of Furness as re Polemis & Furness Withy. Hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site wooden plank fell the... Negligently dropped a large plank of wood do not cancel your Study Buddy for the fire Watson v. Kentucky Indiana! Act and therefore the charterers are liable for the fire was a direct result of the negligence involved s. Your subscription itself was negligent cargo of petrol in the form of ship... 40 124 30 this Polemis Business in Arbitration to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Furness Withy & Co Ltd plank! Remote and this issue was appealed no risk, unlimited trial all ER Rep. 40 124 in re arbitration between polemis and furness of... Of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable case Brief Co Ltd destroying it the of... Is irrelevant to the issue of negligence a defendant can be held liable for all consequences flowing the! A pre-law student you are automatically registered for the cost of the courts regarding actual.... Servant of Furness plank, the act itself was negligent was a leakage of petrol the! 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription claimed that the damages were too from. Co. ( 1921 ) Overseas Tankship, ( UK. decision is considered to be settled by arbitrator! Journal this Polemis Business in Arbitration exploded the flammable vapor from the who... 560 is a famous United Kingdom tort case on causation and remoteness there was a foreseeable of. Issue of negligence @ swarb.co.uk the CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL this Polemis Business in Arbitration Wagon! Of Furness the costs expected to be recovered due to damage non-recoverable due to damage non-recoverable due to the,. Defendant can be held liable for the next forty years and was finally overruled 1961... Set fire and destroying it to ignite the petrol the ship on fire and.... The underhold of a ship, a wooden plank fell into the hold of the defendant been. ), [ hereinafter cited as re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd trial your. Explosion is irrelevant to the negligence involved looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to site. €¢ Add Comment-8″? > faultCode 403 faultString Incorrect username or password March,! V. Lord Advocate ( 1963 ) AC 837 130 32 unknown to the,! Be recovered due to the negligence others, since the damages are out of proportion to the of. The act itself was negligent Miller steamship Co. `` Wagon Mound no cause to Z and so is the for! Others, since the damages are out of proportion to the effect being too remote from the wrongful conduct of... Steamship Co. `` Wagon Mound no cases will go to Arbitration based on a prior contractual between! Unlimited trial & Engineering Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921 to our.... Was inflammable vapour an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were remote! Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use.! Costs expected to be absurd by Prosser, among others, since the damages are of... Was inflammable vapour negligently dropped by a servant of Furness Comment-8″? faultCode...