Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560 stands as a pivotal English tort law case that significantly shaped the legal landscape surrounding causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. This case, decided by the Court of Appeal, introduced the concept of strict liability, where a defendant could be held responsible for all consequences resulting from their negligent conduct, regardless of foreseeability.
The incident leading to the legal dispute involved stevedore employees loading cargo into a ship. Due to the negligence of an employee, a plank fell into the ship's hold, causing a spark that ignited petrol vapours and resulted in a catastrophic explosion. The ship incurred significant damage, ultimately becoming a total loss.
The arbitrator, upon examination of the matter, found that the defendant's negligence in causing the plank to fall was the direct cause of the subsequent fire. The arbitrators awarded damages to the plaintiff, a decision that the defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the defendant's liability, establishing the principle of strict liability. The court held that if an act would or might probably cause damage, the exact nature of the damage was immaterial. Thus, the defendant was deemed liable for all direct consequences of their negligent act, even if the specific damage was unforeseeable.
Re Polemis was a landmark decision at the time, exemplifying the concept of strict liability. However, its significance diminished over time, particularly with the emergence of subsequent landmark decisions, such as Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] and The Wagon Mound (No 1). These later decisions signalled a departure from strict liability, emphasising the importance of foreseeability in determining liability for negligence.
The Privy Council's disapproval of the Re Polemis decision, as evident in The Wagon Mound (No 1), marked a shift in legal principles. While Re Polemis technically remains good law and has not been overruled by an English court, its strict liability principle has not been consistently followed. The evolving legal landscape saw a move away from strict liability, making foreseeability a critical factor in assessing liability for negligence.
The legal landscape post-1932 dictates that defendants are liable in negligence only if the breach of the duty of care could have been foreseen to cause loss, damage, or injury. An exception, the eggshell skull rule, applies only to personal injury cases. This rule dictates that the defendant must take the victim as they find them, as illustrated in the case of Smith v Leech Brain [1962].
In summary, while Re Polemis was instrumental in introducing strict liability, subsequent legal developments have shifted towards a more nuanced approach, emphasising foreseeability as a crucial determinant of liability in negligence cases.
You can learn more about this topic with our Tort Law notes.
Subscribe to UOL Case Bank for more exclusive content and case summaries.
