Legal Case Summary
Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560
The extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely unforeseeable.
Facts
Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. As it fell, the wood knocked against something else, which created a spark which served to ignite the surrounding petrol fumes, ultimately resulting in the substantial destruction of the ship. At first instance (arbitration), it was held that the reasonable unforeseeability of the outcome meant that the defendant was not liable for the cost of the ship.
Issues
Can a defendant be held liable for outcome of events entirely caused by their (or their agents’) actions, but which could not have been foreseen by either the party in question or any other reasonable party.
Decision / Outcome
The Court of Appeal adopted a strict liability approach to causation and assessing liability here and subsequently held that the defendant was liable for all of the consequences that had resulted from their negligent actions. The fact that the extent of these consequences was neither subjectively appreciated nor objectively foreseeable was deemed irrelevant to such a determination. Notably, this authority would go on to be replaced in the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No. 1) [1961] AC 388, however it has never been officially overturned in English law and theoretically remains ‘good case law’, despite its lack of application.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains broadly accurate. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560 is correctly described, and the article accurately notes that it was effectively displaced by the Privy Council decision in Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No 1) [1961] AC 388, which established that a defendant is liable only for damage of a type that was reasonably foreseeable. The current test in English tort law for remoteness of damage remains the reasonable foreseeability test from The Wagon Mound (No 1), as consistently applied by English courts including in Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 and subsequent authorities. The article’s statement that Re Polemis has never been formally overruled and technically remains good law in England and Wales is an accurate reflection of the orthodox academic position. No statutory changes have affected this area of common law remoteness doctrine. Students should be aware that Re Polemis is now of historical and academic interest only and would not be applied by an English court in preference to the Wagon Mound test.
