80%(5)4 out of 5 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 22 - 24 out of 52 pages.
should not be held liableCASE: In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness (1921)Furness leased a steamship from Polemis; the lease specified that Furness was obligated to return the boat in the same condition as he got it but exempted Furness from liability for damage to the ship caused by fireK was interpreted as responsible for fires caused by negligenceFurness’ employees dropped a plank, which caused a spark that ignited leaked benzene, causing a rush of flames that destroyed the shipHELD: The fire was attributed to the negligence of Furness’ employees, bc it was careless to drop a plank; therefore they are responsible for all injuries flowing directly from breachdirectness testCASE: Wagon Mound (No. 1) The crew of the Wagon Mound carelessly spilled furnace oil into the harbor, which was ignited the next day by the crew at Morts Dock, resulting in a fire that destroyed Morts Dock and the boat thereTrial court concluded that the Wagon Mount crew could not have foreseen that they might cause a fire by the spill, but bc the spilled oil made direct contact with the dock, thereby mucking it up, the owners of the Wagon Mound were liable for the destruction of Morts DockHELD: Reversed on appealoverturned PolemisProximate cause test to be whether the type of harm suffered by the Πwas reasonably foreseeable to the ∆s at the time they acted carelesslyThat the ∆could foresee one form of property damage was not sufficient to hold it responsible for causing an entirely different sort of damageCASE: Wagon Mound (No. 2)HELD: The fire was a foreseeable consequence of the furnace-oil spill, and hence was a proximate cause of damage to the shipBased on substantially different evidenceDock owners couldn’t claim it was foreseeable bc then they shouldn’t have been using the torchesB. Foreseeable Risks and the Risk Rule•Risk Rule: One of the risks that belonged to the class of risks that grounded the duty (tries to refine foreseeable consequences)•A negligent actor is legally responsible for the harm that (1) is caused in fact by his conduct but also (2) is a result within the scope of the risks by reasons of which the actor is found to be negligent22
•Ex. Careless to hand a child a loaded gun, but if the child drops the gun on Π’s foot and breaks his toe, there is an injury, duty, and breach, but carelessness not the cause bc not a proximate cause of the accidentCASE: Union Pump Co. v. Allbritton (Tex. 1995)Allbritton slipped and fell on a pipe rack that was wet due to a fire due to a malfunction on the pumpShe sued Union Pump in a products liability case, claiming that but for the pump malfunctioning, the fire wouldn’t have started, and she never would have walked over the pipe rackHELD: Although the pipe malfunction was a but-for cause, the circumstances surrounding Allbritton’s injuries are too remotely connected with Union