For Your Data Polemis Illustration Brief Summary
February 24, 2019
Edit
Polemis illustration brief summary
F: Respondent (vessel owner) chartered their vessel to the appellants. The vessel was employed past times the cartereres to ship a cargo that contained a toxicants. While discharging, it caused an explosion that completely destroyed the vessel.
Ruled inwards favor of Respondents
Direct merely unforeseeable displace of an injury
I: Whether the damages are the proximate displace of the negligence of the charterers too servant?
R: Where it is reasonably foreseeable that D's neg. comport would displace damages to P, D is liable fifty-fifty though the exact extent of the damages is non foreseeable
The burn was non a reasonably foreseeable outcome of allowing the plank to fall. However, it was reasonably foreseeable that the falling plank would displace around cast of harm to the vessel.
This courtroom focuses on directness, don’t attention nearly foreseeability (extent of harm or type of harm – irrelevant)
A: The burn appears to me to pick out been straight caused past times the falling of the plank. Under these circumstances I consider that it is immaterial that the causing of the spark past times the falling of the plank could non pick out been reasonably anticipated. Given the breach of duty which constitutes the negligence, too given the harm every bit a conduct outcome of that negligence, the anticipations of the mortal whose negligent human activity has produced the harm seem to me to last irrelevant. I consider that the damages claimed are non likewise remote. So long every bit the harm is inwards fact straight traceable to the negligent act, too non due to the performance of independent causes having no connectedness alongside the negligent act, except that they could non avoid its results. Once the human activity is negligent, the fact that its exact performance was non foreseen is immaterial.
F: Respondent (vessel owner) chartered their vessel to the appellants. The vessel was employed past times the cartereres to ship a cargo that contained a toxicants. While discharging, it caused an explosion that completely destroyed the vessel.
Ruled inwards favor of Respondents
Direct merely unforeseeable displace of an injury
I: Whether the damages are the proximate displace of the negligence of the charterers too servant?
R: Where it is reasonably foreseeable that D's neg. comport would displace damages to P, D is liable fifty-fifty though the exact extent of the damages is non foreseeable
The burn was non a reasonably foreseeable outcome of allowing the plank to fall. However, it was reasonably foreseeable that the falling plank would displace around cast of harm to the vessel.
This courtroom focuses on directness, don’t attention nearly foreseeability (extent of harm or type of harm – irrelevant)
A: The burn appears to me to pick out been straight caused past times the falling of the plank. Under these circumstances I consider that it is immaterial that the causing of the spark past times the falling of the plank could non pick out been reasonably anticipated. Given the breach of duty which constitutes the negligence, too given the harm every bit a conduct outcome of that negligence, the anticipations of the mortal whose negligent human activity has produced the harm seem to me to last irrelevant. I consider that the damages claimed are non likewise remote. So long every bit the harm is inwards fact straight traceable to the negligent act, too non due to the performance of independent causes having no connectedness alongside the negligent act, except that they could non avoid its results. Once the human activity is negligent, the fact that its exact performance was non foreseen is immaterial.
C: affirmed
Co: Directness + foreseeability (may last indirect, merely tin flame last foreseeable; indirect tin flame last foreseeable) Tests are depending on unlike jurisdiction. (if jurisdiction is non mentioned, jurisdiction follows unlike rules) –-> difficult to gauze
Foreseeability
1. extent (how much damages was created inwards price of coin value) - inwards this illustration unforeseeable 2. type of injury (person or property, burn or punching) – inwards this illustration unforeseeable
3. agency (focuses on exact course of teaching of events that brings accident, ex. burn caused past times spark) -
4. plaintiff (person injured) – inwards this illustration foreseeable
directness – no other independent causes (benzyne), merely tin flame last arguable (not conduct case....the beingness of benzyne) Dropping is the immediate displace of the burn