The law of negligence requires claimants to establish duty, breach and causation before considering the issue of remoteness. Two landmark decisions—the Polemis rule and the Wagon Mound rules—shaped the test for remoteness. This essay examines each rule, assesses their respective contributions to negligence and concludes that contemporary courts favour the Wagon Mound approach.
The Polemis Rule and Its Significance
In Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560, stevedores negligently dropped a plank into the hold of a ship, causing an explosion that destroyed the vessel. The Court of Appeal held that once a breach of duty was established, the defendants were liable for all consequences that flowed directly from the negligent act, whether or not those consequences were foreseeable. This “direct consequences” test expanded liability and underscored the importance of corrective justice: a wrongdoer should bear the full cost of the harm caused. Its significance lay in simplifying the claimant’s task and reinforcing the principle that negligent defendants take their victims as they find them.
The Wagon Mound Rules and Their Contribution
The Privy Council in Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388 rejected the Polemis approach. A large quantity of furnace oil spilled into Sydney Harbour and, although the defendants reasonably believed it would not ignite, the oil was later set alight by molten metal, damaging the claimants’ wharf. Viscount Simonds held that liability extends only to damage of a kind that a reasonable person would have foreseen as a possible consequence of the breach. The decision introduced a foreseeability test that aligns remoteness with the fault principle central to negligence. It thereby limits potentially crushing liability while preserving the requirement that defendants answer for reasonably predictable risks.
Contemporary Preference for the Wagon Mound Approach
Subsequent authorities demonstrate that English courts prefer the Wagon Mound formulation. In Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 the House of Lords applied foreseeability, and in Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] 1 WLR 1082 the same test governed the scope of liability. The modern emphasis on reasonable foreseeability reflects a balanced recognition that negligence is fault-based rather than absolute. Although Polemis retains historical value in illustrating strict causation, its broader reach is generally regarded as incompatible with contemporary policy concerns about indeterminate liability. Therefore, the Wagon Mound rules remain the prevailing standard in UK negligence law.
Conclusion
The Polemis rule established expansive direct-consequence liability, while Wagon Mound substituted a foreseeability criterion that better matches fault-based reasoning. Contemporary case law clearly favours the Wagon Mound approach, ensuring that defendants are held responsible only for reasonably foreseeable harm.
References
- Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837.
- Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] 1 WLR 1082.
- Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388.
- Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560.
- Winfield, P.H. and Jolowicz, J.A. (2010) Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort. 18th edn. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
