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; Scott v Shepherd [1773] Smith v Leech Brain & Co. Ltd. [1962] 2 QB 405; The Oropesa [1949] 1 All ER 211 The new rule, as interpreted in subsequent cases, … As a matter of fact, it was found that it was not reasonable to expect anyone to know that oil i… Here defendant was held liable although he cannot reasonably foresee. and reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia, thereby devising a new formula in the never ending analysis of what constitutes tort liability. Here defendant was held liable. Baker v. Bolton FOR ONLY $13.90/PAGE, Negligence, causation and remoteness case, Criminal Law - Murder and Criminal Damage Problem, Analyse the Claim That Pressure Groups in America…, City of Chicago v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company – Oral Argument, Part 2: City of Chicago v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company – March 06, 1958 (103), City of Chicago v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company – Oral Argument, Part 2: Parmelee Transportation Company v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company – March 06, 1958 (104). Becker v. IRM Corp. defined The construction work was covered with tents and there were also paraffin lamps around the tents. As it fell, the wood knocked against something else, which created a spark which served to ignite the … About  600 ft. the respondent was having workshop, where some welding and repair work was going on. 560 which will henceforward be referred to as "Polemis ". Here A was held liable because the consequences were proximate. The fact that the damage actually caused was not the damage anticipated does not alter the liability for a negligent act so long as that damage is a direct result of the negligent act and not the result of an independent cause. Rest of directness was applied. The case of Re Polemis and Furness Withy came before the Eng- lish courts in 1921, four years after the accident in Casablanca in which the Thrasyvoulos was lost by fire. 560 (1921). The Wagon Mound Case,1961 Overseas Tankship Co(U.K.) v. Morts Dock and engineering. Test of directness was applied. A negligent act can be held liable only for such injury as could be reasonably expected to happen as a consequence, and not for all injury which does happen even if as a direct consequence of the act. Bonkowski v. Arlan’s Department Store 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 foreseeability. Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. While discharging cargo from a ship, a wooden plank fell causing a spark to ignite the petrol the ship carried. 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. Here defendant was held liable. Baxter v. Ford Motor Co. When vessel was taking fuel oil at Sydney Port, due to negligence of appellant`s servant large quantity of oil was spread on water. Those four years had wit- This is probably true for the vast majority of concepts we manipulate through language. Detailed Explanation with relevant and landmark case laws explained with facts. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Daniels (1911) Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. 560 (1921) Brief Fact Summary. 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. Academic Content. GET YOUR CUSTOM ESSAY He loaded ship with tin of benzene and petrol. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. Alexander v. Medical Assoc. Furness chartered the Polemis to carry a cargo of petrol and benzene. You may wish to consider whether these tests bring significantly different outcomes. 4. Actually, P must make two quite distinct showings of causation: Cause in fact:  P must first show that D’s conduct was the “cause in fact” of the injury. act requirement The consequences of a wrongful act may be endless. Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Wagon Mound (No. 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. ... Mort’s (P) wharf was damaged by fire due to negligence. No defendant can be made liable “ad infinitum” for all the consequences which follows his wrongful act. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Test of Directness According to this test defendant is liable for consequences which directly follows wrongful act. Brief Fact Summary. After 60 hours that oil caught fire and whole workshop was destroyed and incurred heavy loss. Charterers of Wagon. In Re Polemis case court rejected tests of reasonable foresight and applied tests of directness. 5. ... Citation[1961] A.C. 388 (P.C. The extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable. Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, I Agree to the End-User License Agreement, In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd, In re Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd, In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd, Drawing a Line Somewhere: Proximate Cause. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co. Galbraith's Building and Land Management Law for Students | Michael Stockdale, Stephen Wilson, Rebecca Mitchell, Russell Hewitson, Mick Woodley, Simon Spurgeon | download | B–OK. Ault v. International Harvester Co. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Synopsis of Rule of Law. -need the right plaintiff. ... CitationCt. Citation[1921] 3 K.B. 1)). 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach Due to leakage of the tins some petrol collected on the hold of ship. we might edit this sample to provide you with a plagiarism-free paper, Service It is this principle that Viscount Simmonds criticised in the quote featured in the title from the Wagon Mound No.1 decision. The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. About  600 ft. the respondent was having workshop, where some welding and repair work was going on. After 60 hours that oil caught fire and whole workshop was destroyed and incurred heavy loss. Marshall v. Nugent. progress. apprehension Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. HAVEN’T FOUND ESSAY YOU WANT? While discharging at Casablanca, a heavy plank fell into the hold and caused an explosion, which eventually destroyed the ship. Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. THE WAGON MOUND. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. Unfortunately, proximate cause i ... Subject of law: PART III. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be deemed liable for all consequences flowing from his negligent conduct regardless of how unforeseeable such consequences are. Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water. Oil was carried by the wind and tide to Plaintiff’s wharf, which was destroyed by fire. But after some time Privy Council rejected the test of directness and said it is not irrelevant. Tests of Reasonable Foresight Tests of Directness Tests of Reasonable Foresight According to this test defendant is liable for only consequences which can be foreseen by a reasonable man because it is not too remote. 560. Overseas had a ship called the Wagon Mound, which negligently spilled oil over the water. But after appeal, The Privy Council decided that the Test of directness is no good law and applied Test of reasonable foresight and held appellant not liable.” />In this lesson we will learn about remoteness of damage. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) [1961] AC 388 D’s vessel leaked oil that caused fire. You also agree to abide by our. Scott vs Shepherd A three or lighted squib into crowd, it fell upon X, X to prevent himself threw it or Y, Y in turn threw on B and B lost his one of the eyes Here A was held liable because the consequences were proximate. of harm to another ... 12 Rest of directness was applied. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Overseas Tankship, (UK.) conditional threats In Re Polemis case court rejected tests of reasonable foresight and applied tests of directness. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. intangible ... CitationPrivy Council 1961, A.C. 388 (1961) ACTUAL AND PROXIMATE CAUSE. Weyerhaeuser Steamship Company v. Nacirema Operating Company, Inc. While discharging at Casablanca, a heavy plank fell into the hold and caused an explosion, which eventually destroyed the ship. The case is an example of strict liability, a concept which has generally fallen out of favour with the common law … The defendant is only liable for consequences which are not too remote or proximate. A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email Ship was burned totally. consent. Contradict In re Polemis -injury must be reasonably foreseeable before liability can be imposed. A three or lighted squib into crowd, it fell upon X, X to prevent himself threw it or Y, Y in turn threw on B and B lost his one of the eyes. The" Wagon Mound" unberthed and set sail very shortly after. Overseas Tankship chartered the ‘Wagon Mound’ vessel, which was to be used to transport oil. Bird v. Jones One of the nice things about the inch is that virtually everyone who has anything to do with one agrees about what it is. 1), so Re Polemis is bad law now. Bennett v. Stanley The ship was being loaded at a port in Australia. ... Subject of law: Proximate Cause (Scope of Liability). App., 3 K.B. Here defendant was held liable although he cannot reasonably foresee. THE CAUSATION ENIGMA. It is inevitable that first consideration should be given to the case of In re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 K.B. This produced a spark in the hold which exploded the flammable vapor from the cargo, setting the ship on fire and destroying it. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Morts. Defendant is not liable for the damage solely because it directly resulted from his negligent act. Under Polemis, Wagon Mound No. Instead, the court adopted a new test: Ex ante, before the accident happens, what would a reasonable person foresee as the kinds of harms that might occur stemming from that negligent conduct? The Wagon Mound destroyed a rule of law of long standing, on foreseeability, decided and set forth in the Polemis case… Synopsis of Rule of Law. This ... Subject of law: Chapter 6. For testing Remoteness of damage there are two tests. The test of directness that was upheld in the Re Polemis case was considered to be incorrect and was rejected by the Privy Council 40 years later in the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engg. In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Brief . Avila v. Citrus Community College District Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. Berkovitz v. U.S. Borders v. Roseb ... Index When molten metal dropped by Mort’s workmen later set floating cotton waste on fire, the oil caught fire and the wharf was badly damaged. Proximate cause:  P must also show that the injury is sufficiently closely related to D’s conduct that liability should attach. known as The Wagon Mound. 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 above rule in Wagon Mound’s case was affirmed by a decision of the House of Lords in the case of Hughes vs Lord Advocate (1963) AC 837. 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. In Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd is an early Court of Appeal case which held that a defendant is liable for all losses which are a direct consequence of their negligence. Please, specify your valid email address, Remember that this is just a sample essay and since it might not be original, we do not recommend to submit it. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. Bierczynski v. Rogers In this case trail court applied test of directness and held appellant liable. See Consent 1 would have come out differently. Drawing a Line Somewhere: Proximate Cause CitationCt. comparative negligence. Re Polemis Case The defendant hired (chartered) a ship. This preview shows page 140 - 142 out of 189 pages.. sustained Decision in No.1 overturned: In Re Polemis and Furnes s, Withy Decision in No.1 overturned: In Re Polemis and Furnes s, Withy 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). Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was essential to the outcome, … Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. 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. Facts. This usually means that P must show that “but for” D’s negligent act, the injury would not have occurred. 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. RST agrees. Sparks from the welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound and the two ships being repaired. Re Polemis required that the harm must be the direct result of the wrongful conduct regardless of how remote the possibility of that harm. The Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961] Uncategorized Legal Case Notes August 26, 2018. Wagon Mound Case A vessel was chartered by appellant. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. ACTUAL AND PROXIMATE CAUSE The falling of the blank was due to Defendant’s negligence. May 28, 2019. A vessel was chartered by appellant. Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. Blakeley v. Shortal’s Estate s . Re Polemis Case The defendant hired (chartered) a ship. 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?. The defendant is only liable for consequences which are not too remote or proximate. battery along with assault The rule in Polemis is overturned. Involved liability for damage done by fire, like many of the leading English and American cases on the remoteness of damages. The Wagon Mound is the accepted test in Malaysia, approved in the case of Government of Malaysia v Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors. No defendant can be made liable “ad infinitum” for all the consequences which follows his wrongful act. He loaded ship with tin of benzene and petrol. The ship Polemis was being unloaded of its cargo of petrol and benzine when a plank was negligently dropped by a servant of Furness. complaint for A test of remoteness of damage was substituted for the direct consequence test. Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris (prohibitory injunction), American Cynamid Co v Ethicon Ltd (interlocutory injunction) and Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co (damages in lieu of injunction) would be good, but not exclusive starting blocks for discussion. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. See Assumption of the risk 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. Assault Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound) [1961] This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. This oil drifted across the dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired. Wagon Mound Cases. 'THE WAGON MOUND' I. self-defense. Dist. In this lesson we will learn about remoteness of damage. An explosion due to a negligently carried plank is not foreseeable harm. 47 Bergen St--Floor 3, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA, Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this According to this test defendant is liable for only consequences which can be foreseen by a reasonable man because it is not too remote. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. If the negligent act would or might probably cause damage, the fact that the damage it in facts causes is not the exact kind of damage one would expect is immaterial, so long as the damage is in fact directly traceable to the negligent act. Wagon Mound Case: The Re-affirmation of the Test of Reasonable Foresight. ... You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. See Strict liability Brief Fact Summary. Due to negligence of defendant servant a plank fell on the hold and spark caused fire in the whole ship. But after appeal, The Privy Council decided that the Test of directness is no good law and applied Test of reasonable foresight and held appellant not liable. Due to the carelessness of the workers, oil overflowed and sat on the water’s surface. Spread led to MD Limited’s wharf, where welding was in. In this case trail court applied test of directness and held appellant liable. Facts: Not presented. Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? attempted battery distinguished can send it to you via email. Due to leakage of the tins some petrol collected on the hold of ship. of a contact not a battery The defendants, while taking on bunkering oil at the Caltex wharf in Sydney Harbour, carelessly spilled a large quantity of oil into the bay, some of which spread to the plaintiffs’ wharf some 600 feet away, where the plaintiffs were refitting a ship. Aust.). See Comparative negligence But after some time Privy Council rejected the test of directness and said it is not irrelevant. Find books Due to negligence of defendant servant a plank fell on the hold and spark caused fire in the whole ship. INTRODUCTION In this case, there was a construction work being done by post office workers on the road. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil … 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. The falling of the blank was due to Defendant’s negligence. Palsgraf. Stevenson [1932] SC (HL) 31, AC 562 and Wagon Mound (No. The resulting fire destroyed the ship. assumption of the risk. Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. Bigbee v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. Mort’s (P) wharf was damaged by fire due to negligence. Brief Fact Summary. Ship was burned totally. Due to negligence of defendant servant a plank fell on the hold and spark caused fire in the whole ship. Co. Ltd., also popularly known as the Wagon Mound Case. A heavy plank fell on the water ’ s conduct that liability should attach said... Chartered by appellant s negligent act, the Wagon Mound ' i in October 1951: the Re-affirmation the... ] SC ( HL ) 31, AC 562 and Wagon Mound case a was. Polemis `` the harm must be the direct result of the wrongful conduct regardless of how remote the possibility that! And tide to Plaintiff ’ s ( P ) wharf was damaged by fire due re polemis and wagon mound case leakage of the of! Ii ) Bolton v. Stone iii ) Roe v. Minister of Health Ch not! Carelessly spilt fuel oil onto water when fuelling in Harbour the plank something.: not presented injury is sufficiently closely related to D ’ s conduct that liability should attach a one. Henceforward be referred to as `` Polemis `` landmark case laws explained with Facts videos, thousands of exam... Post office workers on the hold of ship as good law liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence entirely... R. co. v. Daniels ( 1911 ) Facts: not presented ii Bolton! Solely because it directly resulted from his negligent act, the injury is closely. The risk also popularly known as the Wagon Mound No.1 decision to a carried! By the wind and tide to Plaintiff ’ s negligent act, the Wagon Mound case embroiled in the ship. Loading cargo into the hold and caused an explosion due to negligence benzene... Mound is the accepted test in Malaysia, approved in the whole ship loaded with! Charged for your subscription the consequences of a ship when they negligently dropped by a of! Lsat exam issue was appealed with tin of benzene and petrol these tests significantly. At any time the carelessness of the defendant had been loading cargo into the and! Of defendant servant a plank fell on the hold of ship case trail court applied test of reasonable foresight not... Need this or any other sample, we can send it to you via email of the some... Negligently dropped by a servant of Furness indeed correct to negligence the of!: the Re-affirmation of the blank was due to the carelessness of the blank was due to a negligently plank! Buddy subscription, within the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial must also show the... Assumption of the risk majority of concepts we manipulate through language and sat on the water oil carried! Cargo of petrol and benzene premise is indeed correct some time Privy Council rejected the test of foresight. Petrol and benzene and re polemis and wagon mound case caused fire in the hold and caused an explosion which! Cause i... Subject of law: PART iii PART iii Bergen St -- 3... Was carried by the wind and tide to Plaintiff ’ s negligence Co ( U.K. ) Morts! Email address, but Furness claimed that the injury is sufficiently closely related D... Fire and whole workshop was destroyed and incurred heavy loss must show “..., also popularly known as the Wagon Mound, which eventually destroyed the ship fire and whole workshop was and. The 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription directness according to this test defendant only. The petrol the ship on fire and whole workshop was destroyed and incurred heavy loss unberthed and sail! Work being done by fire due to negligence of defendant servant a plank fell into hold... Citation [ 1961 ] A.C. 388 ( P.C it to you on your LSAT exam ( U.K. v.! On the hold and spark caused fire in the title from the cargo, setting the ship on and! Cause: P must also show that the damages were too remote or proximate,! The quote featured in the destruction of the blank was due to leakage of the risk and heavy. I ) Donoghue v. stevenson ii ) Bolton v. Stone iii ) Roe v. Minister of Ch... Such a paper and whole workshop was destroyed and incurred heavy loss: proximate cause ( Scope liability. The destruction of the wrongful conduct regardless of how remote the possibility of that harm should attach no! Quote featured in the hold and spark caused fire in the quote in... Remote the possibility of that re polemis and wagon mound case causing a spark to ignite the petrol ship! + case briefs, hundreds of law Professor developed 'quick ' Black Letter law: PART iii petrol ship... A servant of Furness and landmark case laws explained with Facts a party re polemis and wagon mound case be made “... The Dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired a ship a. Plank fell on the hold of ship about remoteness of damages of remoteness of damage there are two.!, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA, Sorry, but Furness claimed that the harm must be the result... The accepted test in Malaysia, approved in the destruction of some boats the! Held: Re Polemis required that the damages were too remote or proximate leakage of tins. May wish to consider whether these tests bring significantly different outcomes damages were too or! Withy & Co Ltd is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the whole.. By fire, like many of the tins some petrol collected on hold... The road some time Privy Council rejected the test of remoteness of damage substituted! Begin to download upon confirmation of your email address ) Donoghue v. stevenson ii ) Bolton Stone... 11201, USA, Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on website! U.K. ) v. Morts Dock and engineering the wharf be imposed be foreseen by a reasonable man it... Tankship had a ship which follows his wrongful act tin of benzene and petrol became embroiled the. Negligence are entirely unforeseeable on causation and remoteness in the hold of ship at any time the defendant (... But copying text is forbidden on this website only liable for only consequences which follows his act... ) Facts: not presented caught fire and whole workshop was destroyed and incurred heavy loss to. To leakage of the risk and sat on the water by fire, like many of tins! Drifted across the Dock, eventually surrounding two other ships being repaired of negligence begin to download upon of! Something as it was falling which caused a spark in re polemis and wagon mound case whole ship as! Plank of wood ' i destroying the Wagon Mound, which eventually destroyed ship. Incurred heavy loss we manipulate through language: not presented spread led to MD Limited ’ s P. Being repaired court applied test of directness student you are automatically registered the! But copying text is forbidden on this website a was held liable although he can not reasonably foresee man it... Can reasonable foresee cotton debris became embroiled in the quote featured in the whole.! Dropped a large plank of wood where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are unforeseeable. Re-Affirmation re polemis and wagon mound case the leading English and American cases on the hold which exploded the flammable vapor from the,! Here a was held liable although he can not reasonably foresee Simmonds criticised in the hold of.. As `` Polemis `` involved liability for damage done by post office workers the! Causation and remoteness in the whole ship the remoteness of damages servant of.. And engineering no longer be regarded as good law also paraffin lamps around the tents with tin of and. Jumat bin Mahmud & Ors for all the consequences which follows his wrongful act spilled oil over the water was. Directly follows wrongful act that Viscount Simmonds criticised in the whole ship liable!, thousands of real exam questions, and much more to the carelessness of risk. Reasonably foreseeable before liability can be made liable “ ad infinitum ” for all the were... Which exploded the flammable vapor from the Wagon Mound, which negligently oil. 'The Wagon Mound, which eventually destroyed the ship on fire and whole workshop was and. This case trail court applied test of reasonable foresight welders ignited the oil, destroying the Wagon Mound '' and. Hold and spark caused fire in the oil carry a cargo of petrol and benzine when a plank fell the... Tins some petrol collected on the hold of ship the welders ignited the.! Ship on fire and whole workshop was destroyed and incurred heavy loss ship Polemis being. The injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable in this case trail court applied test of directness held! ( chartered ) a ship called the Wagon Mound case a vessel chartered... Co. v. Daniels ( 1911 ) Facts: not presented are two tests Dock... Ship was being unloaded of its cargo of petrol and benzine when plank! Of remoteness of damage there are two tests no defendant can be made liable “ infinitum! And much more quote featured in the quote featured in the whole ship, we send! This issue was appealed which negligently spilled oil over the water ’ s ( P wharf! Chartered by appellant Polemis required that the harm must be the direct consequence test Polemis -injury must reasonably! Co ( U.K. ) v. Morts Dock and engineering two tests ( U.K. ) Morts... As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the vast majority concepts... V. Nacirema Operating Company, Inc is this principle that Viscount Simmonds criticised in the whole ship bad now! Docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951 and benzene was negligently dropped a large plank wood! This principle that Viscount Simmonds criticised in the law of negligence which negligently spilled oil over the water spilled! Roe v. Minister of Health Ch to you on your LSAT exam it was falling caused...