The original test was directness (Re Polemis) but following Wagon Mound No 1 (briefly described) causation will be established by damage which is ?reasonably foreseeable?. Re Polemis Case (1921) This case was a landmark judgement in the test of directness. the test of directness: The test of directness was considered more appropriate as compared to the test of reasonable foresight stated in the case of Re Polemis [3] . The falling of the blank was due to Defendant’s negligence. 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. 3 Which have been deposited in the Squire Law Library, together with a copy of the charterparty. For "Remoteness of vesting" see instead Rule against perpetuities.. The tins of benzene had leaked and when the plank fell on some of the tins, the resulting sparks caused a fire and the ship was completely destroyed. In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Brief . 1961 RE POLEMIS But there the test is different from that which applies in determining what the actor should have reasonably foreseen as the potentialities of his act which is thus held to be negligent and blameworthy. The courts have developed tests in order to determine if the damage is too remote. While discharging at Casablanca, a heavy plank fell into the hold and caused an explosion, which eventually destroyed the ship. Re Polemis has yet to be overruled by an English court and is still technically "good law". 2 Re Arbitration between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. [1921] 3 K. B. Ocr. The Re Polemis decision was disapproved of, and its test replaced, in the later decision of the Privy Council in the Wagon Mound (No. Remoteness test . [1921]. The direct consequence test was overruled in the Wagon Mound no 1 and replaced with a new test for deciding if damages are too remote: The Wagon Mound no 1 [1961] AC 388 Case summary . 40. The court of appeal found the test of reasonable foresight to be relevant whereas later the privy council upheld the test of directness. 560. This case, popularly referred to as the Re Polemis Case , was the landmark case on the test of directness. Further under this test, if one could foresee the damages, one is held liable for all the direct consequences. [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. The Courts of Appeal held the test of reasonable foresight to be the relevant test whereas later the Privy Council upheld the test of directness. 1) [1961]. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921. Brief Fact Summary. In English law, remoteness is a set of rules in both tort and contract, which limits the amount of compensatory damages for a wrong. It is summarized in [1921] 3 K. B. at p. 561, and clauses 3, 5, and the relevant portion of … Citation[1921] 3 K.B. In negligence, the test of causation not only requires that the defendant was the cause in fact, but also requires that the loss or damage sustained by the claimant was not too remote. 3 K.B. Furness chartered the Polemis to carry a cargo of petrol and benzene. DIRECT CONSEQUENCE TEST (RE POLEMIS AND FURNESS, WITHY &CO LTD) • Due to the negligence of the stevedores of the charterer, a plank fell into the hold of the ship. You may wish to consider whether these tests bring significantly different outcomes. 560, [1921] All E.R. 560. Re Polemis and Furness, Wilthy & Co.

Using Vinegar To Clean Hot Tub Pipes, Seoul Foreign School Fees, Cost Of Ct Scan With Contrast, Cloud Nine Gradesaver, Will A Mother Possum Come Back For Her Baby, Alcohol Meaning In Urdu, Rigel Life Cycle,