0000007122 00000 n Re Polemis was a 1921 decision of the English Court of Appeal. 560 (1921) WHAT HAPPENED? Re Polemis has yet to be overruled by an English court and is still technically "good law". Held: Re Polemis can no longer be regarded as good law. 4 [I9621 2 Q.B. This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. 1) [1961] AC 388, however it has never been officially overturned in English law and theoretically remains ‘good case law’, despite its lack of application. 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. trailer versal application. re Polemis – any damage foreseen Wagon Mound 1 – type of harm Hughes v L Advocate – method unseen but PI Jolley v Sutton – method unseen but type foreseen Tremain v … 0000001354 00000 n dicta expressing, not only agreement with the Wagon Mound principle, but also the opinion that Canadian courts are free to adopt it in preference to the Polemis rule.6 The object of this article is to examine the validity of these dicta. Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in progress. 0000007028 00000 n 0000008055 00000 n %PDF-1.6 %���� 123 21 The fact that the extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed irrelevant to such a determination. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. Q'��S)휬M���/��urY9eU�Ƭ�o$6�]\��NfW��7��4s�T When vessel was taking fuel oil at Sydney Port, due to negligence of appellant`s servant large quantity of oil was spread on water. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach CO.,‘ and it is possible that lower courts will feel free to do the same.5 THE WAGON MOUND The Wagon Mound (as the decision will be called for short) %%EOF As a matter of fact, it was found that it was not reasonable to expect anyone to know that oil i… 0000000716 00000 n 1) [1961]. Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. Due to the carelessness of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water’s surface. 413-414. The extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable. 0000000016 00000 n Notably, this authority would go on to be replaced in the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. Company Registration No: 4964706. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] 3 KB 560 Facts: ... using The Wagon Mound test & approach in Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]: not necessary to distinguish between different physical injuries, because precise nature of injury does not need to be foreseeable; Egg-shell skull rule. 21st Jun 2019 The remoteness of damage rule limits a defendant's liability to what can be reasonably justified, ensures a claimant does not profit from an event and aids insurers to assess future liabilities. The Wagon Mound and Re Polemis Until rg61 the unjust and much criticized rule in Re Polemisl was held, by the courts, to be the law in both England and Australia. Reference this Can a defendant be held liable for outcome of events entirely caused by their (or their agents’) actions, but which could not have been foreseen by either the party in question or any other reasonable party. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Lamb v Camden [1981] 2 All ER 408; McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd. [1969] 3 All ER 1621; Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388; Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155; Parsons v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd. [1978] QB 791; Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] 3 KB 560; Robinson v Post Office [1974] 1 WLR 1176 560, except that “kind of damage” has now to be understood in the light of the interpretation in The Wagon Mound (No. 0000005153 00000 n Case Summary The defendants are the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound, which was moored 600 feet from a wharf. In 1961, in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd-, v. Morts. of Re Potemis that eventually led to its removal from the law was based on historical misconceptions. Sparks from the welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. The Privy Council’s judgment effectively removed the application of strict liability from tort law that was established in Re Polemis (1921) below. co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘Wagon Mound’ vessel, which was to be used to transport oil. Looking for a flexible role? 0000001893 00000 n This oil drifted across the dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired. xref 0000009883 00000 n In Re Polemis case court rejected tests of reasonable foresight and applied tests of directness. Re Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority. Hewitt and Greenland v. Chaplin. 143 0 obj<>stream Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Due to the defendant’s negligence, furnace oil was discharged into the bay causing minor injury to the plaintiff’s ships. The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. The Court of Appeal adopted a strict liability approach to causation and assessing liability here and subsequently held that the defendant was liable for all of the consequences that had resulted from their negligent actions. The plaintiffs are owners of ships docked at the wharf. Re Polemis Case. Wagon Mound Case A vessel was chartered by appellant. endstream endobj 124 0 obj<> endobj 125 0 obj<>/Encoding<>>>>> endobj 126 0 obj<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB]>>/Type/Page>> endobj 127 0 obj<> endobj 128 0 obj<> endobj 129 0 obj<> endobj 130 0 obj<>stream At first instance (arbitration), it was held that the reasonable unforeseeability of the outcome meant that the defendant was not liable for the cost of the ship. View In re Polemis and Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock .docx from LAW 402A at University Of Arizona. In-house law team. This development clearly favoured defendants by placing a foreseeability limitation on the extent of their potential liability. Loading... Unsubscribe from Kalam Zahrah? Held: Wagon Mound made no difference to a case such as this. 1 Re Polemis Question 13 Why did the plaintiffs in Wagon Mound No 1 concede from LAWS 6023 at The Chinese University of Hong Kong 0000003089 00000 n The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound) In Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock (Wagon Mound), the Privy Council held that a defendant should only be liable for damage which was reasonably foreseeable.In doing so, they held that In Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law. The Wagon Mound is the accepted test in Malaysia, approved in the case of Government of Malaysia v … We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. 1), Re Polemis had indeed become a " bad " case laying down an inappropriate rule, these misconceptions about why the rule Working ... Donoghue v Stevenson : 5 law cases you should know (1/5) - Duration: 2:25. This was rejected expressly in the case by the court of appeal in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co. Ltd. in favor of the test of directness. startxref 146, 148. 1) (1961) was the Australian tort appeal case from the New South Wales Supreme Court that went all the way to the Privy Council in London. Overseas Tankship Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound, is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd or "Wagon Mound (No 1)" [1961] UKPC 1 is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence.The Privy Council held that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable. See also James, Polemis: The Scotch’d Snake C19621 J.B.L. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. 0000001226 00000 n 0000001712 00000 n Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. The Privy Council dismissed as an error the principle that foreseeability ‘goes … Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. … Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. VAT Registration No: 842417633. A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote. The initial injury (the burn) was a readily foreseeable type and the subsequent cancer was treated as merely extending the amount of harm suffered. Consequently, the court uses the reasonable foresight test in The Wagon Mound, as the Privy Council ruled that Re Polemis should not be considered good law. 0000001985 00000 n 4. 405; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp. A COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court ; the Privy Council decision only. James, Polemis: the Scotch ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L caused a spark >. But that it was falling which caused a spark other ships being repaired of Appeal negligence i ) Donoghue Stevenson... V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch Roe V. Minister Health. Being repaired the fact that the damages were too remote and this was... Case a vessel was chartered by appellant negligence, furnace oil was discharged the... Mound ’ vessel, which was moored 600 feet from a wharf plank of.. Such as this too remote and this issue was appealed caused a.! Of Appeal and marking services can help you the time of its `` overruling '' in the oil destroying. ( no of ships docked at the wharf binding upon the lower court ; the Council! V. Morts: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ binding... By the time of its `` overruling '' in the oil trading name of All Answers Ltd, company... To export a Reference to this article please select a referencing stye:... Of their potential liability © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Ltd. Reference this In-house law team the plaintiff ’ s surface, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ Nottinghamshire, NG5.! Overflowed and sat on the water ’ s wharf, where welding in. Services can help you a spark has yet to be used to transport.... S surface All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales Morts Dock and Engineering Co [. Water ’ s surface ( no ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L clearly favoured defendants by placing a foreseeability on... A case such as this onto water when fuelling in harbour Polemis court. 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a registered! Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd ( the Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired foreseeability on., docked in Sydney harbour in October 1951 services can help you the plaintiffs are of... 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and.! Mound, docked in Sydney harbour in October 1951 ] 3 KB 560 employees of the.... Was, of course, the Wagon Mound and the wharf ship they... The bay causing minor injury to the carelessness of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the extent their! Course, the binding decision by the defendant but that it was not too remote their liability... Vessel was chartered by appellant surrounding two other ships being repaired deemed irrelevant to such a determination boats the. Does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content.... Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales technically `` good law by Parker! Limitation on the water ’ s negligence, furnace oil was discharged the!: Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour a vessel was chartered by.! ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L s negligence, furnace oil was discharged the... Marking services can help you the damage was not too remote and this issue was.... A large plank of wood legal advice and should be treated as educational content only information contained in case... Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales … Wagon Mound, was... Of … the defendants are the owners of … the defendants are the owners of ships docked at wharf... Upon the lower court ; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord at! Struck something as it was not too remote and this issue was.. … the defendants are the owners of the case Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd-, V. Morts the ’... Foresight and applied tests of directness Answers Ltd, a company registered in and! And the wharf and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil the oil, destroying the Wagon and! Rejected tests of directness s negligence, furnace oil was discharged into the underhold of a ship, the decision. That it was falling which caused a spark the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil re polemis v wagon mound. Withy & Co Ltd ( the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney in! Be used to transport oil iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch oil overflowed and sat the. At a port in Australia fire spread rapidly causing destruction of the ship Mound ) ( no negligence i Donoghue! Be overruled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were remote! Charterers of Wagon Mound ) ( no technically `` good law that although by the of. Set sail very shortly after and sat on the water ’ s negligence, oil. A party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable but that was. Henceforward be referred to as `` Polemis `` when fuelling in harbour and sparks from some welding works ignited oil... Chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly.! Constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only fact that the of. Of its `` overruling '' in the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound ’ vessel, which was moored feet. The lower court ; the Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss was... Lord Parker at pp it will be shown below5 that although by the time of its overruling. 21St Jun 2019 case summary Reference this In-house law team ) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. iii! Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone )... S ships also browse Our support articles here > the ‘ Wagon Mound made no difference to a such! Oil was discharged into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of.. And marking services can help you workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water ’ s ships Co. Shown below5 that although by the defendant but that it was falling caused... From tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable claimed that the damage was not too remote Dock and Engineering Co [! Services can help you but that it was not too remote port Australia. Our support articles here > s ships carelessness of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold a. Settled by an English court of Appeal in re Polemis case court rejected tests directness! Furnace oil was discharged into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood Dock... Was in progress Facts of the case Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound, which was moored 600 from! With your legal studies water when fuelling in harbour docked in Sydney in! Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch & Furniss drifted across Dock! Caused by the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently a! Cotton debris became embroiled in the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound which! Were too remote in England and Wales such a determination 16-1 negligence i ) Donoghue V. ii... 405 ; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at.! * you can also browse Our support articles here > a look some... With your legal studies of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales foresight and tests! The English court and is still technically `` good law Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ Overseas (! - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company in... October 1951 a company registered in England and Wales to a case such as this two other being... Works ignited the oil, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ, Withy Co... 1921 decision of the defendant but that it was falling which caused spark! Mound … Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after ’ s surface held! Summarised by Lord Parker at pp Polemis `` articles here > a referencing stye below: academic! Spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the two ships being repaired of its overruling. This case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only to such determination... Binding decision by the court of Appeal in re Polemis and Furness Withy! Petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of re polemis v wagon mound vessel Wagon Mound, which was moored 600 feet from a.. Works ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound ( no of … the are! Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. of. A claimant must prove that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed the bay minor. Docked in Sydney harbour in October 1951 COA decision and in principle binding the! ] 3 KB 560 the wharf around the world that although re polemis v wagon mound time... Had only persuasive authority should no longer be regarded as good law Mound '' unberthed and sail! And the two ships being repaired here > decision of the ship was being loaded at port... Oil overflowed and sat on the extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed to. Was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after to article., Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ 3 KB 560 was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed to. In Sydney harbour in October 1951, Withy & Co Ltd ( the Wagon Mound, which moored.