should not be held liable CASE In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness

Should not be held liable case in re arbitration

This preview shows page 22 - 24 out of 52 pages.

should not be held liable CASE: 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 fire K was interpreted as responsible for fires caused by negligence Furness’ employees dropped a plank, which caused a spark that ignited leaked benzene, causing a rush of flames that destroyed the ship HELD: 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 breach directness test CASE: 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 there Trial 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 Dock HELD: Reversed on appeal overturned Polemis Proximate cause test to be whether the type of harm suffered by the Π was reasonably foreseeable to the s at the time they acted carelessly That the could foresee one form of property damage was not sufficient to hold it responsible for causing an entirely different sort of damage CASE: 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 ship Based on substantially different evidence Dock owners couldn’t claim it was foreseeable bc then they shouldn’t have been using the torches B. 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 negligent 22
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 accident CASE: 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 pump She 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 rack HELD: Although the pipe malfunction was a but-for cause, the circumstances surrounding Allbritton’s injuries are too remotely connected with Union

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture