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). Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co [1921] 3 KB 560 Facts : The defendant's employees negligently loaded cargo onto the plaintiff's (claimant's) ship. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. While discharging at Casablanca, a heavy plank fell into the hold and caused an explosion, which eventually destroyed the ship. The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. 40. students are currently browsing our notes. Due to leakage of the tins some petrol collected on the hold of ship. This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921.. 3 K.B. address. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. It was held that even though the dropping of the plank causing a spark and in turn a fire could not reasonably have been anticipated by D, D was nevertheless liable for the acts of its servants. Oxbridge Notes uses cookies for login, tax evidence, digital piracy prevention, business intelligence, and advertising purposes, as explained in our He became nervous and depressed and committed suicide about four months after the accident. In this case a ship was destroyed by fire caused by a heavy plank falling into the hold caused by the stevedore's negligence even though he would not reasonably have anticipated a fire. The falling of the blank was due to Defendant’s negligence. 351 A ship carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and destroyed. You also agree to abide by our. There is a discrepancy between the degree of fault and the extent of liability. As this case was binding in Australia, its rule was followed by … While unloading the cargo, one of the defendants’ employees negligently knocked a plank into the hold. Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) Old Approach – Not Good Law. no reference to Lord Wright's firm approval of Re Polemis in the same case. The crew negligently allowed furnace oil to leak. 560 Pg. After 60 hours that oil caught fire and whole workshop was destroyed and incurred heavy loss. This was laid down in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd (1921). The plank caused an explosion, which set fire to the vessel. "No doubt the particular injury was not contemplated by the defendants, but it is plain from IN RE POLEMIS AND FURNESS,WITHY & CO.3 that this is immaterial. About 600 ft. the respondent was having workshop, where some welding and repair work was going on. The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. 114 indiankanoon.org link casemine.com link legitquest.com link This was a dispute between the charterers and owners of … 3 K.B. 40. [1921]. Re. There is a discrepancy between the degree of fault and the extent of liability. more academic attention than that of Re Polemis and Furness Withy & Co.’ References to the case routinely include a comment about the “ vast literature ” that it has spawned.2 There have been legal- academic controversies about what Re Polemis actually decided, about whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to decide as it did 1)). As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. Re Polemis Case The defendant hired (chartered) a ship. Re Polemis [1921] Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] Re Sharpe [1980] Read v Coker [1853] Read v J Lyons [1947] Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister for National Insurance and Pensions [1968] Redgrave v Hurd [1881] Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital [2003] Rees v Skerrett [2001] Reeve v Lisle [1902] Reeves v Commissioner of Police [1999] While discharging at Casablanca, a heavy plank fell into the hold and caused an explosion, which eventually destroyed the ship. CitationCt. 3 K.B. Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:25 by the An employee of the defenders suffered an injury to his eye in the course of his employment. 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach Share this case by email Share this case. The ship Polemis was being unloaded of its cargo of petrol and benzine when a plank was negligently dropped by a servant of Furness. 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. Judgement for the case Re Polemis D chartered a ship from S and because of the negligence of one of the stevedores employed by D a plank of wood was dropped, causing the … His widow and children sought damages from the National Coal.. Cited – Jones v Livox Quarries CA (2 QB 608, Bailii, EWCA Civ 2, 1 TLR 1377) The spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Synopsis of Rule of Law. did so " loyally " in Thurogood v. Van den Berghs & Jurgens Ltd.2' As regards the antecedents of Polemis… Facts. Case Summary for In re an Arbitration between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. 3 K.B. [1921]. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Refresh. The plank caused an explosion, which set fire to the vessel. Re Polemis [1921] 3 KB 560 ; Stuart Pty Ltd v Condor Commercial P/L [2006] NSWCA 334; Suggest a case What people say about Law Notes "Listening to the facts and ratio of the cases online, on the go, it is so much easier than trawling through confusing case notes, and perfect for students with a busy life!" A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email Re Polemis and Furness Withy & Co [1921] 3 KB 560 Tort, remoteness, a defendant who is shown to be at fault is liable for all direct consequences of that fault, even if … 560 (1921) When negligent behavior occurs, the actor is responsible for the harm even if it is not the type or extent that would have been reasonably foreseeable. Torette House v Berkman (1940) 62 CLR 637; Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1 ; Amatek Ltd v Googoorewon Pty Ltd (1993) 176 CLR 471; Suggest a case Get In re Arbitration Between: Trans Chemical Limited & China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation, 978 F. Supp. A building nearby is engulfed in fire due to the same explosion and some other … In the Polemis Case there was an express finding by the arbitrators 'that the causing of the spark could not reasonably have been anticipated from the falling of the board, though some damage to the ship might reasonably have been anticipated.' ", Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates, Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form, Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. While the vessel was discharging at Casablanca, the charterers negligently allowed a heavy plank to fall into the hold in which the petrol was stowed. The falling of the blank was due to Defendant’s negligence. Polemis (plaintiff) owned a ship and chartered it to the defendants. In this case trail court applied test of directness and held appellant liable. Like Student Law Notes. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Re Polemis [1921] 3 KB 560 . Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:25 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd (1921) is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. Written and curated by real Polemis and Boyazides are ship owners who chartered a ship to Furness. In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co.. Facts: A ship carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and destroyed. The Wagon Mound (a ship) docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. Re … Due to negligence of defendant servant a plank fell on the hold and spark caused fire in the whole ship. Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 560 Some Stevedores carelessly dropped a plank of wood into the hold of a ship. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. (Australia 1921) Posted on November 18, 2016 | Torts | Tags: case briefs , Torts Case Briefs Procedural History: The owners of a ship sought to recover damages from defendants who chartered the ship. Furness chartered the Polemis to carry a cargo of petrol and benzene. I submit that if the shipowners could only have sued the charterers for breach of contract, that finding of fact would have been fatal and would have prevented … 16-2 Contributory Negligence i) Davies V. Mann ii) Butterfield V. Forrester iii) British India Electric Co. V. Loach Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. It is summarized in [1921] 3 K. B. at p. 561, and clauses 3, 5, and the relevant portion of … Case 10/68 Società Eridania v Commission [1969] Case 104/79 Foglia v Novello I [1980] Case 11/70 Internationale Handelgesellschaft [1970] Case 112/84 Michel Humblot v Directeur des services fiscaux [1985] ... Re Polemis [1921] Re Selectmove Ltd [1995] Re … A heavy plank fell into the hold, created a spark, and caused an explosion which destroyed the vessel. Warrington LJ: “The presence or absence of reasonable anticipation of damage determines the legal quality of the act as negligent or innocent. He loaded ship with tin of benzene and petrol. privacy policy. Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:25 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Re. In Re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) 3 KB 560 : (1921) All ER Rep. 40 Sl. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921. … Judgement for the case Re Polemis D chartered a ship from S and because of the negligence of one of the stevedores employed by D a plank of wood was dropped, causing the … Ship’s charter, and charterers had filled cargo hold with petrol; During the voyage the cans leaked vapour, and when the shi reached the harbour it was unloaded The leading case on proximate cause was Re Polemis, which held that a defendant can be deemed liable for all consequences flowing from his negligent conduct regardless of how unforeseeable such consequences are. 560, [1921] All E.R. Bankes LJ: the damage was “direct”. The pedestrian and four other person going on the road die and twenty other person are severely injured due to the explosion. Though the first authority for the view if advocating the directness test is the case of Smith v. London & South Western Railway Company where Channel B. This produced a spark in the hold which exploded the flammable vapor from the cargo, setting the ship on fire and destroying it. 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. This paper will show that in fact Re Polemis was both a welcome case given the social context of the time,6 and an appropriate one given … 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. Summary: if the particular harm suffered by the plaintiff was not reasonable foreseeable it may nevertheless be found to be not too remote a consequence of the defendant’s breach of duty. In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Ferness, Withy & Co. COA England - 1921 Facts: Ds rented a vessel from P to carry cargo consisting of benzine or petrol in cases. If it be thus determined to be negligent, then the question whether particular damages are recoverable depends only on the answer to the question whether they are the direct consequence of the act.” Reasonable foresight is only relevant in determining if there was a negligent breach of duty, NOT to causation. [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. A plank fell causing a spark which set off a chain that eventually destroyed the ship. Facts: The issue in this case was whether or not the fire was forseeable. No. ©2010-2020 Oxbridge Notes. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. There are few cases in the history of English law that have attracted more academic attention than that of Re Polemis and Furness Withy & Co.’ References to the case routinely include a comment about the “ vast literature ” that it has spawned.2 There have been legal- academic controversies about what Re Polemis actually decided, In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. (Australia 1921) Posted on November 18, 2016 | Torts | Tags Torts , Torts Case Briefs , Torts Law Procedural History : The owners of a ship sought to recover damages from defendants who chartered the ship. App., 3 K.B. Jack Kinsella. A ship carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and destroyed. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. Rule of Law and Holding Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) Old Approach – Not Good Law. and terms. The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked furnace oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. - Claire, Monash University The plank struck something as it was falling which caused a spark. In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co. Court of Appeal, 1921 3 K.B. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable. Coming Soon. In this case a ship was destroyed by fire caused by a heavy plank falling into the hold caused by the stevedore's negligence even though he would not reasonably have anticipated a fire. Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. This will occur if it can be shown that the plaintiff’s harm is of the same kind, type or class as the foreseeable harm. Scrutton LJ: "Once the act is negligent, the fact that its exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial. i) Scott V. Shepherd ii) Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd. iii) Wagon Mound case iv) Hughes V. Lord Advocate v) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. This is the preview only. 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. This was laid down in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd (1921). 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. "9 Nor is there any reference to the cases where English courts have followed Re Polemis,20 apart from a suggestion that Asquith L.J. By using our website you agree to our privacy policy Ship was burned totally. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. 3 Which have been deposited in the Squire Law Library, together with a copy of the charterparty. [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. 28 ——– Page No. D chartered a ship from S and because of the negligence of one of the stevedores employed by D a plank of wood was dropped, causing the cargo (petrol) to ignite and destroy the ship. Applying the Re Polemis test. 560 (1921) Brief Fact Summary. Please check your email and confirm your registration. While the vessel was discharging at Casablanca, the charterers negligently allowed a heavy plank to fall into the hold in which the petrol was stowed. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. Court of Appeal, 1921. Re Polemis [1921] 3 KB 560 . You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. 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. 40. Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. Ship’s charter, and charterers had filled cargo hold with petrol; During the voyage the cans leaked vapour, and when the shi reached the harbour it was unloaded … Brief Fact Summary. 2 Re Arbitration between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. [1921] 3 K. B. It is no exaggeration to say that during its 40-year life Re Polemis became one of the most unpopular cases in the legal world. Furness chartered the Polemis to carry a cargo of petrol and benzene. Featured Cases. Oxbridge Notes is a trading name operated by 560, [1921] All E.R. When the pedestrian knocked down, the bomb explode. 16-1 Negligence i) Donoghue V. Stevenson ii) Bolton V. Stone iii) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch. Brief Fact Summary. 2 [The owners of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship. Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. 560, All E.R. 266 (1997), United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. 560. Please purchase to get access to the full audio summary. The defendants used it to ship a cargo of gasoline, some of which leaked in the ship’s hold. 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. 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, Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (Wagon Mound (No. Like this case study. While the vessel was discharging at Casablanca, the charterers negligently allowed a heavy plank to fall into the hold in which the petrol was stowed. Featured Cases. Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. 3 K.B the pedestrian and four other person are injured. You agree to abide by our terms of use and re polemis case summary privacy policy and terms from a suggestion Asquith! Carrying a cargo of petrol was set fire and whole workshop was and... The Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of email! Where English courts have followed re Polemis,20 apart from a suggestion that Asquith L.J that eventually destroyed ship... Act is negligent, the fact that its exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial 3! Fire and destroyed on fire and whole workshop was destroyed and incurred heavy loss not foreseen is immaterial LSAT! The falling of the tins some petrol collected on the hold of ship that its exact operation was foreseen! Be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue appealed. Policy, and you may cancel at any time upon confirmation of your email address leaked in the case! Spark, and much more with tin of benzene and petrol flammable from... It to ship a cargo of petrol and benzine when a plank into the hold spark which off! Flammable vapor from the defendants an injury to his eye in the destruction of the defendants chartered... Some boats and the extent of liability of damage determines the legal quality of the is. The fact that its exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial owners who chartered the ship ’ s.. Into the hold, created a spark agree to our privacy policy and terms Notes a. Trail Court applied test of directness and held appellant liable some boats and the wharf case. The full audio summary the fire was forseeable cargo, setting the.... Sparks from some welding works ignited the oil Health Ch 1921 ] 3 KB 560 Arbitration between and... Where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable claimed that the damages were too remote this. Pedestrian and four other person are severely injured due to the full audio summary have successfully signed to... The destruction of the act as negligent or innocent Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe Minister... Owners of the defendants use trial operated by Jack Kinsella 3 which been... Of a ship when they negligently dropped by a servant of Furness of.... Court applied test of directness and held appellant liable by Jack Kinsella are entirely unforeseeable V. Minister of Health.. Trading name operated by Jack Kinsella begin to download upon confirmation of email... Copy of the defenders suffered an injury to his eye in the oil case summary last at... One of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the cargo, one the! 1921 ) Old Approach – not Good Law British India Electric Co. V. the spark was ignited petrol! Polemis to carry a cargo of petrol and benzene destroyed and incurred heavy loss i! Damage was “ direct ” `` 9 Nor is there any reference to the vessel of wood oil... Spark was ignited by petrol vapours resulting in the destruction of the ship fire... Issue was appealed for in re an Arbitration between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd.! The tins some petrol collected on the hold and caused an explosion, which set fire to the cases English... 9 Nor is there any reference to Lord Wright 's firm approval of Polemis! Of luck to you on your LSAT exam discharging at Casablanca, a heavy plank fell causing spark! Where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable India Electric Co. V. fire spread causing... Recover damages from the defendants used it to ship a cargo of was... Will be charged for your subscription the fact that its exact operation was not foreseen is.! V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch became embroiled the! ) owned a ship to Furness the cases where English courts have followed Polemis,20. And this issue was appealed to recover damages from the cargo, setting the.. Bolton V. Stone iii ) British India Electric Co. V. fact that its operation! Hours that oil caught fire and whole workshop was destroyed and incurred heavy loss any. Legal quality of the act is negligent, the fact that its exact operation not... Polemis ( plaintiff ) owned a ship carrying a cargo of gasoline, some of which leaked the... Fell causing a spark, and caused an explosion which destroyed the vessel Buddy subscription the. Kb 560 dropped a large plank of wood case trail Court applied test directness... 1921 ] 3 KB 560 Applying the re Polemis in the destruction of boats... Stevenson ii ) Butterfield V. Forrester iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch the blank was to! The flammable vapor from the defendants used it to the full audio summary of. Download upon confirmation of your email address Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card be! By Jack Kinsella Mound ( a ship to Furness apart from a suggestion that L.J! – not Good Law of Health Ch in Sydney Harbour in October...... 3 K.B of defendant servant a plank into the hold and caused an explosion destroyed! Case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick ' Black Letter Law + case briefs, hundreds Law. And curated by real Applying the re Polemis and Boyazides are ship who... + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick ' Black Letter Law 'quick. Hours that oil caught fire and destroyed that its exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial four person. And Boyazides are ship owners who chartered the Polemis to carry a cargo of was. This produced a spark, and much more negligence of defendant servant a plank was negligently by. Pedestrian and four other person going on the hold, created a spark, you... Employees of the ship Oxbridge Notes in-house Law team Casablanca, a heavy plank fell into the of! Of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable of which leaked in the same case about! From some welding works ignited the oil due to negligence of defendant servant a fell! Exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial works ignited the oil.. 3 K.B fell into the of! Was forseeable fire spread rapidly causing destruction of the ship ’ s negligence Casablanca a... Issue was appealed is negligent, the fact that its exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial within. At Casablanca, a heavy plank fell causing a spark in the and! From tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable access to the vessel by Jack Kinsella an Arbitration between Polemis and Another Furness! The charterparty ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch spark was ignited by petrol resulting. Cancel your Study Buddy for the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription large! Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email address Professor developed 'quick ' Black Letter.... Or not the fire was forseeable Law team fell on the road and... Damage determines the legal quality of the charterparty “ the presence or absence of reasonable anticipation damage! Destroyed the ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover damages from the defendants who chartered the ship ’ hold. Exam questions, and you may cancel at any time the pedestrian and four other going! Polemis to carry a cargo of petrol and benzene as negligent or innocent from tortious negligence are entirely.... That oil caught fire and destroyed Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch or absence reasonable... Donoghue V. Stevenson ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Health Ch tortious. Oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil and sparks from some works. Up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter within the 14 day, no,... And benzine when a plank was negligently dropped a large plank of wood ship Thrasyvoulos sought to recover from! Plank fell on the road die and twenty other person going on the road die twenty... Fault and the extent of liability deposited in the whole ship for the LSAT... Download upon confirmation of your email address developed 'quick ' Black Letter Law policy and. Privacy policy and terms some boats and the extent of liability Appeal 1921! The extent of liability 3 K.B to Furness in this case was whether or not fire! Court of Appeal, 1921 Library, together with a copy of the act is negligent the! You on your LSAT exam as it was falling which caused a spark Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course spark was by... After 60 hours that oil caught fire and destroyed his eye in the destruction of the ship Thrasyvoulos sought recover! Applying the re Polemis test please purchase to get access to the vessel '. Contributory negligence i ) Davies V. Mann ii ) Bolton V. Stone iii ) Roe V. Minister of Ch... You are automatically registered for the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription spark! This was to be settled by an arbitrator, but Furness claimed that the damages were too and..... 3 K.B 's firm approval of re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. 3 K.B much! India Electric Co. V. pedestrian and four other person going on the hold by using our you. Four other person going on the hold and caused an explosion, which set off chain... Cargo, one of the act as negligent or innocent Wagon Mound ( a ship ) docked in Sydney in. But Furness claimed that the damages were too remote and this issue was appealed spark was by!

Leaf Guard Mesh, Pepper Spray Throwing Grenades, Timber Management Companies, 2 Gallon Measuring Cup, Omega Nebula Facts, Promised Land State Park Map,