âA claimant must prove that the damage was not only caused by the defendant but that it was not too remote âHistorical position on remoteness: Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co  âThe current law on remoteness: Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock (The Wagon Mound (No 1))  In essence, the position is that the defendant will only be liable for damage that is reasonably foreseeable The rule of remoteness is familiar notion that a line must be drawn because it would be too harsh for the defendant or tortfeasor to accept every responsibility. Now, the test is based on foreseeability. Re Polemis  3 KB 560. Cases. The Privy Council, however, stated that Re Polemis was no longer good law. 560. ... he held, on the authority of Re Polemis, liable for the damage done by the fire, which was a direct consequence of the escape of the oil. F: Ship, plank causes spark causes explosion ... Work was negligent, liable for harm that is r. foreseeable (remoteness rule) Condon v CIE  IEHC 17. Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co  3 KB 560 Facts: The plaintiffs chartered a ship and due to bad weather the cargo had leaked, releasing some gas below the deck. F: Train crash cause of bad procedures, CIE blame plaintiff internally, plaintiff seeks cost of â¦ Remoteness of damage relates to the requirement that the damage must be of a foreseeable type. Though the first authority for the view if advocating the directness test is the case of Smith v. London & South Western Railway Company where Channel B. â¦ Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co  3 KB 560; Robinson v Post Office  1 WLR 1176; Scott v Shepherd  Smith v Leech Brain & Co. Ltd.  2 QB 405; The Oropesa  1 All ER 211; Tremain v Pike  1 WLR 1556 Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd , commonly known as Wagon Mound , is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd (1921) is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. when that case was decided the law on remoteness of damage in negligence was far from satisfactory. In Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd  In Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co Ltd is an early Court of Appeal case which held that a defendant is liable for all losses which are a direct consequence of their negligence. At the same time, the principle of that case had been steadily On unloading the ship one of the defendant's workers knocked down a plank, creating a spark, which ignited the gas and burnt the ship. The directness test laid down by the Court of Appeal in Re Polemis,2 though frequently criticized, had never actually been overruled. The test for remoteness was initially one of directness. 2 Re Arbitration between Polemis and Another and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd.  3 K. B. Nevertheless, as the Australian courts were following Re Polemis, the defendants were liable for both type of damages. The test of reasonable foresight was rejected and the test of directness was considered to be more appropriate by the Courtof Appeal in It is summarized in  3 K. B. at p. 561, and clauses 3, 5, and the relevant portion of â¦ 3 Which have been deposited in the Squire Law Library, together with a copy of the charterparty. This was rejected expressly in the case by the court of appeal in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co. Ltd. in favor of the test of directness.