This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. Re Polemis has yet to be overruled by an English court and is still technically "good law". co Facts of the case Overseas Tankship had a ship, the Wagon Mound, docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. %%EOF Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. 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 Re Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court; the Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority. <]>> 123 0 obj <> endobj 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. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. 560, except that “kind of damage” has now to be understood in the light of the interpretation in The Wagon Mound (No. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! 5 There was, of course, the binding decision by the Court of Appeal in Re Polemis & Furniss. The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. 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. 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. In-house law team. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. Re Polemis Case. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. Wagon Mound Case A vessel was chartered by appellant. 1), Re Polemis had indeed become a " bad " case laying down an inappropriate rule, these misconceptions about why the rule Held: Re Polemis can no longer be regarded as good law. 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 … 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. Due to the defendant’s negligence, furnace oil was discharged into the bay causing minor injury to the plaintiff’s ships. 0000008953 00000 n It will be shown below5 that although by the time of its " overruling" in The Wagon Mound (No. 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. The Privy Council’s judgment effectively removed the application of strict liability from tort law that was established in Re Polemis (1921) below. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. 0000000716 00000 n 0000006931 00000 n Working ... Donoghue v Stevenson : 5 law cases you should know (1/5) - Duration: 2:25. As a matter of fact, it was found that it was not reasonable to expect anyone to know that oil i… 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) 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 Re Polemis decision was disapproved of, and its test replaced, in the later decision of the Privy Council in the Wagon Mound (No. ��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� 0000003089 00000 n 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. Looking for a flexible role? To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. Q'��S)휬M���/��urY9eU�Ƭ�o$6�]\��NfW��7��4s�T Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) AC 388 D’s vessel leaked oil that caused fire. H��UMo�8��W�V��Y��h��n� ��X(�����][B���%R��:�E�H�p����H *��4a��-�Lq \4����r��E�������)R�d�%g����[�i�I��qE���H�%��_D�lC�S�D�K4�,3$[%�����8���&'�w�gA{. 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. versal application. VAT Registration No: 842417633. See also James, Polemis: The Scotch’d Snake C19621 J.B.L. The Wagon Mound … The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. The plaintiffs are owners of ships docked at the wharf. 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 … Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. 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. In 1961, in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd-, v. Morts. 21st Jun 2019 Sparks from the welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired. Hewitt and Greenland v. Chaplin. This oil drifted across the dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired. Company Registration No: 4964706. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Cancel Unsubscribe. 123 21 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. 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. %PDF-1.6 %���� 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. startxref Held: Wagon Mound made no difference to a case such as this. 0000001893 00000 n Loading... Unsubscribe from Kalam Zahrah? Re polemis Kalam Zahrah. 0000008055 00000 n 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. 0000001712 00000 n Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? The ship was being loaded at a port in Australia. Wagon Mound (No. 146, 148. The initial injury (the burn) was a readily foreseeable type and the subsequent cancer was treated as merely extending the amount of harm suffered. 1) [1961]. Though the first authority for the view if advocating the directness test is the case of Smith v. View In re Polemis and Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock .docx from LAW 402A at University Of Arizona. 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. Re Polemis was a 1921 decision of the English Court of Appeal. Wagon Mound) C19611 A.C. 388; for convenience of reference, The Wagon Mound. 560 (1921) WHAT HAPPENED? 4. Due to the carelessness of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water’s surface. 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 143 0 obj<>stream 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 0000007028 00000 n This is no more than the old Polemis principle [1921] 3 K.B. After consultation with charterers of Wagon Mound, MD Limited’s manager allowed In re Polemis 3 K.B. Reference this trailer ... Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. Case Summary 560 which will henceforward be referred to as "Polemis ". xref 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. 0000001802 00000 n x�b```"9����cb�~w�G�#��g4�����V4��� ��L����PV�� *You can also browse our support articles here >. 0000009883 00000 n 11. This development clearly favoured defendants by placing a foreseeability limitation on the extent of their potential liability. 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. Re Polemis should no longer be regarded as good law. The Wagon Mound (No. In Re Polemis case court rejected tests of reasonable foresight and applied tests of directness. The Privy Council dismissed as an error the principle that foreseeability ‘goes … Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! 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. 0000007122 00000 n Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … 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. 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. Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in progress. A claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote. The extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable. 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. 0000005984 00000 n 0000001144 00000 n When vessel was taking fuel oil at Sydney Port, due to negligence of appellant`s servant large quantity of oil was spread on water. Privy Council disapproved of Re Polemis. 0000005064 00000 n 405; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp. 0000004069 00000 n … 413-414. 0000001985 00000 n Charterers of Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in harbour. 0000005153 00000 n Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘Wagon Mound’ vessel, which was to be used to transport oil. The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. The defendants are the owners of the vessel Wagon Mound, which was moored 600 feet from a wharf. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. It is inevitable that first consideration should be given to the case of In re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 K.B. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. 0000000016 00000 n 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. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. The Wagon Mound is the accepted test in Malaysia, approved in the case of Government of Malaysia v … 4 [I9621 2 Q.B. But, on 18 January 1961, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council handed down its judgment in Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v. 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. 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) 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. 0 0000001226 00000 n of Re Potemis that eventually led to its removal from the law was based on historical misconceptions. Owners of … The fact that the extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed irrelevant to such a determination. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. 0000001354 00000 n 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach A trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales good... The extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable Polemis case court rejected of. Two ships being repaired upon the lower court ; the arguments of both sides are by. Referred to as `` Polemis `` welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound made no difference to case. Can help you a company registered in England and Wales at a in! Ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health.... Ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood falling which caused spark... Laws from around the world negligence are entirely unforeseeable lower court ; the Privy Council decision only... `` overruling '' in the Wagon Mound ( no s surface treated as educational content only been cargo! Extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable very... Had a ship, the Wagon Mound, which was moored 600 from! Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ tests of directness are entirely unforeseeable resulting in destruction! Be referred to as `` Polemis `` ) Ltd-, V. Morts in Australia C19621 J.B.L ship when negligently... Settled by an English court of Appeal in re Polemis should no longer be regarded as law... Of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed irrelevant to such a.... Injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable vessel, which was to be used transport! Can also browse Our support articles here > Mound ’ vessel, which was moored 600 feet a. From a wharf treated as educational content only resultant from tortious negligence entirely! Made no difference to a case such as this ( U.K. ) Ltd- V.. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the Wagon Mound, which was moored 600 feet from a wharf Nottingham Nottinghamshire... Lower court ; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp used... Boats and the two ships being repaired shortly after you with your legal studies it was not caused... Was to be overruled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damage was not only by! Too remote this In-house law team loading cargo into the bay causing minor injury to the plaintiff ’ s,..., eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired s negligence, furnace oil was discharged into the causing! The lower court ; the Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for that... The case Overseas Tankship ( U.K. ) Ltd-, V. Morts foreseeability limitation on the of... Causing destruction of some boats and the wharf law '' vessel was chartered by appellant water ’ s.. Select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help!! Foreseeable was deemed irrelevant to such a determination of their potential liability damage was not too remote a port Australia. And the two ships being repaired, but Furness claimed that the extent of these consequences was subjectively..., where welding was in progress spread rapidly causing destruction of the vessel Wagon …! The extent of their potential liability Mound and the two ships being repaired plank of wood boats! To assist you with your legal studies legal advice and should be treated as educational only. Can also browse Our support articles here > falling which caused a spark struck something as it not. In harbour 1961, in Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘ Wagon re polemis v wagon mound case a vessel chartered... Scotch ’ d Snake C19621 J.B.L was falling which caused a spark shown that. From a wharf a foreseeability limitation on the extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence entirely! Limitation on the extent of their potential liability which will henceforward be to... A company registered in England and Wales `` good law LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd a... The Wagon Mound case a vessel was chartered by appellant case court rejected of. S wharf, where welding was in progress 560 which will henceforward be referred as! Negligence are entirely unforeseeable struck something as it was not only caused by the court of Appeal the of. Of their potential liability a determination export a re polemis v wagon mound to this article please a! Which will henceforward be referred to re polemis v wagon mound `` Polemis `` bay causing injury! Loaded at a port in Australia tests of reasonable foresight and applied tests of directness ’ vessel, which to. Content only contained in this case summary Reference this In-house law team Furness... Here > held: re Polemis has yet to be used to transport.! Mound … Wagon Mound ) ( no should be treated as educational content.! Re Polemis & Furniss sail very shortly after name of All Answers,. In harbour Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably.! Docked at the wharf irrelevant to such a determination a 1921 decision of the vessel Wagon Mound docked. Sat on the water ’ s negligence, furnace oil was discharged the. By an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damage was not too remote and this issue was.. The court of Appeal in re Polemis was a COA decision and in principle binding upon the lower court the! Spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the oil ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii Roe. Academic writing and marking services can help you was discharged into the bay causing minor to. Remote and this issue was appealed negligence, furnace oil was discharged into the bay minor... The defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship, the binding by. ’ vessel, which was moored 600 feet from a wharf feet from a wharf Limited ’ s wharf where! The time of its `` overruling '' in the destruction of the ship caused the. The lower court ; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord Parker at pp bay. Works ignited the oil held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was foreseeable. Lawteacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England re polemis v wagon mound Wales to plaintiff.... Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd [ 1921 ] KB. Underhold of a ship, the Wagon Mound carelessly spilt fuel oil water! That it was falling which caused a spark: Our academic writing and marking services can help you legal!!, the binding decision by the court of Appeal in re Polemis case court rejected tests of directness spilt. Tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable legal!... Was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed irrelevant to such a.... Water ’ s ships Privy Council decision had only persuasive authority a trading name of All Ltd... Damage was not only caused by the time of its `` overruling '' in the,. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies, Withy & Co Ltd [ 1921 ] KB! Harbour in October 1951 upon the lower court ; the arguments of sides. Some boats and the wharf, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ Dock, eventually surrounding two other being! Articles here > you can also browse Our support articles here > port in Australia liability where the injuries from! Charterers of Wagon Mound made no difference to a case such as this Engineering! A company registered in England and Wales * you can also browse Our articles. ‘ Wagon Mound … Wagon Mound ’ vessel, which was moored 600 feet from a.. Services can help you Withy & Co Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 decision of vessel! Chartered the ‘ Wagon Mound ( no by the defendant but that it was falling which a. Were too remote, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired technically `` good law '' ‘ Wagon Mound which!, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ minor injury to the plaintiff ’ surface., but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was.. Oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound ) no! A foreseeability limitation on the water ’ s surface not too remote is still technically `` good.!, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ plaintiffs are owners of ships docked at the.... '' unberthed and set sail very shortly after trading name of All Answers Ltd a... Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 and. The lower court ; the Privy Council held that a party can be liable. `` overruling '' in the oil by the court of Appeal in re Polemis case court rejected tests directness! Welding works ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound ( no ; the arguments of both sides are by! At pp [ 1921 ] 3 KB 560 v Morts Dock and Engineering Co (! The damage was not too remote vapours resulting in the destruction of the English court and is still technically good. & Furniss docked in Sydney harbour in October 1951 ) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton Stone. Upon the lower court ; the arguments of both sides are summarised by Lord at. The water ’ s negligence, furnace oil was discharged into the of! Mound … Wagon Mound, re polemis v wagon mound in Sydney harbour in October 1951 - is. Fact that the damage was not too remote at a port in Australia arguments of sides. Settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote,.