Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd.

Facts

The defendants chartered a ship whose cargo included tins of benzene/petrol. Leakage caused petrol vapour to collect in the hold. Owing to the negligence of the defendants' servants, a plank was knocked down into the hold, causing a spark that ignited the vapour and totally destroyed the ship by fire. The loss (about £200,000) could not reasonably have been foreseen, though some damage from the falling plank was foreseeable.

Issues

• Where an act is negligent because some damage is foreseeable, is the defendant liable for all direct consequences even if the actual damage was not foreseeable?

Arguments

The shipowners argued that once the act of letting the plank fall was negligent, the defendants were answerable for all damage directly traceable to it, including the fire. The defendants argued they could not be liable for the destruction of the ship by fire because such a consequence was not reasonably foreseeable.

Held

The Court of Appeal held the defendants liable for the full loss. Per Scrutton L.J., to determine whether an act is negligent one asks whether a reasonable person would foresee that it would cause some damage; if so, the act is negligent. Once the act is negligent, the fact that the exact kind or extent of damage was not foreseen is immaterial, so long as the damage is directly traceable to the negligent act and not due to independent intervening causes. The owners recovered the loss as the direct consequence of the wrongful act.

Ratio decidendi

Under the directness test, a person who commits a negligent act is liable for all damage that directly flows from it, irrespective of whether that damage was reasonably foreseeable.

Significance

The leading authority for the directness test of remoteness, building on Smith v. London & South Western Railway Co. It dominated for forty years until overruled by the Privy Council in The Wagon Mound (1961). Its scope had earlier been limited by Liesbosch Dredger v. Edison. Now of largely historical importance but essential for understanding the foreseeability/directness debate.

Related