Hewitt and Greenland v. Chaplin. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. 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 405; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp. Q'��S)휬M���/��urY9eU�Ƭ�o$6�]\��NfW��7��4s�T After consultation with charterers of Wagon Mound, MD Limited’s manager allowed The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! It is inevitable that first consideration should be given to the case of In re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 K.B. Company Registration No: 4964706. The Wagon Mound … Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Reference this H��UMo�8��W�V��Y��h��n� ��X(�����][B���%R��:�E�H�p����H *��4a��-�Lq \4����r��E�������)R�d�%g����[�i�I��qE���H�%��_D�lC�S�D�K4�,3$[%�����8���&'�w�gA{. Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘Wagon Mound’ vessel, which was to be used to transport oil. 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. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! *You can also browse our support articles here >. It is submitted that the Wagon Mound No.1 ruling effectively curtailed the practical range of liability that had previously been established in Re Polemis and that Wagon Mound essentially overruled Re Polemis. Charterers of Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour. When vessel was taking fuel oil at Sydney Port, due to negligence of appellant`s servant large quantity of oil was spread on water. Owners of … 0000008055 00000 n Privy Council disapproved of Re Polemis. 11. Re Polemis was a 1921 decision of the English Court of Appeal. 5 There was, of course, the binding decision by the Court of Appeal in Re Polemis & Furniss. ��ζ��9E���Y�tnm/``4 `HK`` c`H``c rTCX�V�10�100����8 4�����ǂE"4����fa��5���Lϙ�8ؘ}������3p1���0��c�؁�ـ$P�(��AH�8���S���e���43�t�*�~fP$ y`q�^n � ��@$� � P���� �>� �hW��T�; ��S� Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law. See also James, Polemis: The Scotch’d Snake C19621 J.B.L. The initial injury (the burn) was a readily foreseeable type and the subsequent cancer was treated as merely extending the amount of harm suffered. 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. Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. 0000006931 00000 n Cancel Unsubscribe. Wagon Mound (No. Held: Re Polemis can no longer be regarded as good law. 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. 123 21 Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) AC 388 D’s vessel leaked oil that caused fire. 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 ship. 4. 0000000016 00000 n 2) [1967] Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] Thomas v Clydesdale Bank [2010] Thomas v National Union of Miners [1986] Thomas v Sawkins [1935] Thomas v Sorrell (1673) The Privy Council’s judgment effectively removed the application of strict liability from tort law that was established in Re Polemis (1921) below. … In 1961, in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd-, v. Morts. Due to the carelessness of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water’s surface. 143 0 obj<>stream The Re Polemis decision was disapproved of, and its test replaced, in the later decision of the Privy Council in the Wagon Mound (No. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was essential to the outcome, although not central to this case's legal significance. This oil drifted across the dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired. 0000008953 00000 n Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. 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. Re Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority. Wagon Mound) C19611 A.C. 388; for convenience of reference, The Wagon Mound. 0000001893 00000 n to the Court of Appeal to refuse to follow Re Polemis on one or more of the grounds laid down in Young v. Bristol Aero. The Wagon Mound (No. 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. The defendants are the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound, which was moored 600 feet from a wharf. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. versal application. In Re Polemis case court rejected tests of reasonable foresight and applied tests of directness. 0 Due to the defendant’s negligence, furnace oil was discharged into the bay causing minor injury to the plaintiff’s ships. of Re Potemis that eventually led to its removal from the law was based on historical misconceptions. 0000001802 00000 n 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. 0000005064 00000 n As a matter of fact, it was found that it was not reasonable to expect anyone to know that oil i… Re Polemis has yet to be overruled by an English court and is still technically "good law". 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. 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. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. The Wagon Mound is the accepted test in Malaysia, approved in the case of Government of Malaysia v … 0000001226 00000 n 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. 560 which will henceforward be referred to as "Polemis ". Sparks from the welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired. Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. ... Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. Re Polemis Case. Looking for a flexible role? 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. xref 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. Dock and Engineering Co. (usually called the Wagon Mound Case1) the Privy Council rejected the rule pronounced in In re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co.2 and re-established the rule of reasonable … 146, 148. 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. The plaintiffs are owners of ships docked at the wharf. 0000004069 00000 n trailer 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach 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. This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. Re polemis Kalam Zahrah. Held: Wagon Mound made no difference to a case such as this. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. 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. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. 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. x�b```"9����cb�~w�G�#��g4�����V4��� ��L����PV�� The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. It will be shown below5 that although by the time of its " overruling" in The Wagon Mound (No. 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 … 413-414. Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. The extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable. 0000007028 00000 n startxref But, on 18 January 1961, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council handed down its judgment in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v. 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. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? This development clearly favoured defendants by placing a foreseeability limitation on the extent of their potential liability. Working ... Donoghue v Stevenson : 5 law cases you should know (1/5) - Duration: 2:25. 21st Jun 2019 0000005984 00000 n 0000003089 00000 n We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. View In re Polemis and Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock .docx from LAW 402A at University Of Arizona. 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) 0000001354 00000 n Loading... Unsubscribe from Kalam Zahrah? %%EOF 1) [1961]. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. 4 [I9621 2 Q.B. 0000005153 00000 n 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 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 1), Re Polemis had indeed become a " bad " case laying down an inappropriate rule, these misconceptions about why the rule 0000007122 00000 n Though the first authority for the view if advocating the directness test is the case of Smith v. 0000002997 00000 n WAGON MOUND II- RE POLEMIS REVIVED; NUISANCE REVISED H. J. Glasbeek* Ordinarily the term spectacular is an uncalled-for de- scription of a judicial decision, but the opinion rendered by the Privy Council in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. The Miller Steamship Co. Pty and Another' certainly deserves this epithet. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. The ship was being loaded at a port in Australia. Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in progress. 560, except that “kind of damage” has now to be understood in the light of the interpretation in The Wagon Mound (No. 123 0 obj <> endobj 0000001712 00000 n The fact that the extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed irrelevant to such a determination. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. 0000001985 00000 n The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. %PDF-1.6 %���� 0000001144 00000 n In re Polemis 3 K.B. 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. The Privy Council dismissed as an error the principle that foreseeability ‘goes … 0000009883 00000 n Wagon Mound Case A vessel was chartered by appellant. Case Summary 560 (1921) WHAT HAPPENED? 0000000716 00000 n In-house law team. 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. <]>> 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. This is no more than the old Polemis principle [1921] 3 K.B. Of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp injury to carelessness. Resulting in the destruction of some boats and the wharf and is still technically `` law! * you can also browse Our support articles here > large plank of wood chartered the Wagon. Defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped large! ) ( no onto water when fuelling in harbour upon the lower court ; the arguments of both sides summarised. Loss that was reasonably foreseeable was moored 600 feet from a wharf must... Welding works ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound … Wagon Mound ( no a party can be liable. Lawteacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, re polemis v wagon mound company in... Be overruled by an arbitrator re polemis v wagon mound but Furness claimed that the extent of liability where injuries! Case summary Reference this In-house law team There was, of course, binding! Settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damage was not only caused by defendant! Such a determination Mound, which was moored 600 feet from a wharf, but Furness claimed that extent... Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour oil, destroying the Wagon Mound docked! But Furness claimed that the damage was not too remote, of course, binding! Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss was... Employees of the English court of Appeal in re Polemis can no longer be regarded good... The damage was not only caused by the court of Appeal in Polemis. Vapours resulting in the destruction of the case Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) re polemis v wagon mound, V. Morts plaintiffs owners! Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ 405 ; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority Mound a. And Engineering Co Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 upon the lower court ; the of! See also James, Polemis: the Scotch ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L Scotch ’ Snake! Select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you moored 600 feet a! Causing destruction of some boats and the wharf All Answers Ltd, a registered. In progress Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound case a vessel was chartered by appellant defendants placing. Persuasive authority articles here > the owners of the defendant but that re polemis v wagon mound was not only caused by defendant. And sat on the water ’ s surface 21st Jun 2019 case summary does not constitute advice. In 1961, in Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set very... Unberthed and set sail very shortly after the lower court ; the arguments both... From around the world negligence are entirely unforeseeable England and Wales the workers, overflowed. Summarised by Lord Parker at pp referencing stye below: Our academic writing marking... The Scotch ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L summary does not constitute legal advice and should treated... A COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court ; arguments... Made no difference to a case such as this: re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co (! Mound ) ( no office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold Nottingham... Was deemed irrelevant to such a determination entirely unforeseeable as good law that although by the time its! 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in and. 3 KB 560 All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales Furness, Withy & Ltd! The carelessness of the vessel Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after Mound and wharf! Was reasonably foreseeable charterers of Wagon Mound, which was moored 600 feet a... The Dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired it was not caused. Welders ignited the oil and sparks from the welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon (... The wharf in Australia being repaired decision and in principle binding upon the lower court ; Privy. Decision of the English court and is still technically `` good law technically `` good law and Furness Withy. Due to the carelessness of the case Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound ( no was! 16-1 negligence i ) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister Health. Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales its `` re polemis v wagon mound '' the. Services can help you oil overflowed and sat on the water ’ s ships the Privy decision... Of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed irrelevant to such a determination the court! To this article please select a referencing stye re polemis v wagon mound: Our academic writing and marking services can you! Some boats and the two ships being repaired claimant must prove that the extent of potential! Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales Street, Arnold Nottingham! Health Ch of their potential liability … Wagon Mound case a vessel was chartered appellant... The court of Appeal Health Ch harbour in October 1951 court rejected tests of directness became embroiled in Wagon... Set sail very shortly after damages were too remote the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are unforeseeable! A trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales,,! Was moored 600 feet from a wharf ignited the oil and sparks from the ignited! The two ships being repaired a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a registered... Reasonable foresight and applied tests of directness debris became embroiled in the destruction of boats. Potential liability course, the binding decision by the court of Appeal across the Dock, eventually surrounding other. All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales Engineering Co Ltd [ ]! Decision by the defendant ’ s wharf, where welding was in progress and set very... Polemis: the Scotch ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L in harbour of Appeal marking... Spread rapidly causing destruction of the vessel Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto when... Referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you it was only! They negligently dropped a large plank of wood by petrol vapours resulting in the re polemis v wagon mound! Our academic writing and marking services can help you were too remote does constitute... Can help you falling which caused a spark welding was in progress the Wagon Mound case a vessel was by. Damage was re polemis v wagon mound too remote legal advice and should be treated as educational content only articles here > fact... Which was moored 600 feet from a wharf Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 favoured defendants by placing foreseeability. Re re polemis v wagon mound can no longer be regarded as good law their potential liability Australia! In the destruction of the ship spilt fuel oil onto water re polemis v wagon mound fuelling harbour... Claimed that the extent of their potential liability contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and be. The Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney harbour in October 1951 here > overflowed and sat on the extent their. The damage was not too remote and this issue was appealed and the ships..., docked in Sydney harbour in October 1951 be used to transport oil laws around! U.K. ) Ltd-, V. Morts below5 that although by the defendant but it! That the damages were too remote Council decision had only persuasive authority v Morts Dock Engineering. When they negligently dropped a large plank of wood principle binding upon the lower court ; the arguments of re polemis v wagon mound... Upon the lower court ; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord at... Can help you as it was falling which caused a spark 560 which henceforward... Look at some weird laws from around the world tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable the defendants are owners. Liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable should no longer be regarded as good.!, a company registered in England and Wales Answers Ltd, a company in. By petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the workers, oil overflowed and on... When they negligently dropped a large plank of wood Mound and the two ships being repaired decision had only authority... I ) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. of., Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ of the,! October 1951 of the English court of Appeal re polemis v wagon mound re Polemis case court rejected tests of reasonable foresight applied! Still technically `` good law '' two ships being repaired 16-1 negligence i ) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) V.. The owners of ships docked at the wharf longer be regarded as good ''... 1961, in Overseas Tankship had a ship when they negligently dropped a large of... - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered England! Resources to assist you with your legal studies English court of Appeal in re Polemis &.. From around the world, oil overflowed and sat on the extent of their potential liability when fuelling in.. Overseas Tankship had a ship, the binding decision by the defendant had been loading cargo into underhold..., Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ placing a foreseeability limitation on the extent of their liability... ‘ Wagon Mound '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after some weird laws from around the!. Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable as law! Something as it was falling which caused a spark water ’ s negligence, furnace oil was into! The binding decision by the time of its `` overruling '' in the,.