Get documents about "ProximateOrLegalCause_UnforeseeableConsequences_ArbitrationBetweenPolemis_v_dFurnessWithy
Document Sample
067a15d8-6568-4d56-92bb-f06ede7d3809.doc Page 295 In re Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & co. Ltd., Court of Appeal, 1984 Was the damage too remote for ∆ to be liable? Issue Reasoning The falling of the board is due to ∆’s negligence – damages in amount of £196. Just because the result was unexpected, does not relieve them from liability. Once the act is negligent, the fact that its exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial. Rule Facts (1) ∆ chartered a boat ∏. A board fell into the gas hold (2) and came into contact with some substance that sparked a fire and destroyed the boat. Arbitrator found that: The causing of the spark was too remote and could not have been anticipated from the falling of the board. Held Procedure P argues D argues Appeal dismissed Arbitrators found some negligence but not for total value of boat. ∏ appeals. Damages were too remote to be foreseeable and thus that the defendants were not the proximate cause of the damages. 067a15d8-6568-4d56-92bb-f06ede7d3809.doc Page 295
