Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co. Ltd.
[1921] 3 King's Bench 56019211 min read
The case in brief30-second read
- Facts
- Workers negligently dropped a plank into the hold of a ship. The impact caused a spark. Petrol vapour present in the hold ignited, causing a fire that destroyed the entire vessel. The extent of this damage was far greater than what might specifically be anticipated from merely dropping a plank.
- Issue
- Whether a defendant is liable for the full extent of damage flowing directly, in an unbroken physical chain, from a negligent act, even where this specific kind or extent of damage was not itself foreseeable.
- Held
- The fire was a direct, physical consequence of the negligent act, without any independent intervening cause breaking the chain. The defendant was liable for the full extent of this damage. This liability did not depend on whether this specific kind or extent of damage was itself reasonably foreseeable at the time of the negligent act.
- Principle
- A defendant is liable for all damage that is a direct consequence of their negligent act, regardless of whether that specific damage was foreseeable.
Facts
- Workers negligently dropped a plank into the hold of a ship. The impact caused a spark. Petrol vapour present in the hold ignited, causing a fire that destroyed the entire vessel. The extent of this damage was far greater than what might specifically be anticipated from merely dropping a plank.
Issue
- Whether a defendant is liable for the full extent of damage flowing directly, in an unbroken physical chain, from a negligent act, even where this specific kind or extent of damage was not itself foreseeable.
Held
- The fire was a direct, physical consequence of the negligent act, without any independent intervening cause breaking the chain. The defendant was liable for the full extent of this damage. This liability did not depend on whether this specific kind or extent of damage was itself reasonably foreseeable at the time of the negligent act.
Ratio decidendi
Under the direct consequence test, a defendant is liable for all damage flowing directly from their negligent act, in an unbroken physical chain of causation, regardless of whether the specific kind or extent of that damage was itself foreseeable.
Exam use
How to use it in an answer
- Key line: "In Re Polemis (1921), the court held a defendant liable for all damage that is a direct consequence of a negligent act, regardless of foreseeability; this test was subsequently rejected by The Wagon Mound (1961)."
- Always pair with The Wagon Mound (1961), which rejected this direct consequence test in favour of reasonable foreseeability, now the prevailing standard.
Cite this
Citation
Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co. Ltd. [1921] 3 King's Bench 560Reported: [1921] 3 KB 560. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.