Re Polemis &amp; Furness, Withy &amp; Co LtdRe Polemis &amp; Furness, Withy &amp; Co Ltd Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd "In Re" Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd (1921) is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be deemed liable for all consequences flowing from his negligent conduct regardless of how unforeseeable such consequences are. The case is an example of strict liability, a concept which has generally fallen out of favour with the common law courts. The case may now be considered "bad law", having been superseded by the landmark decisions of "Donoghue v Stevenson" and "The Wagon Mound  (No 1)". Facts. The defendant stevedore's employees were loading cargo into a ship. An employee negligently caused a plank to fall into the ship's hold. The plank caused a spark, which ignited some petrol vapour in the hold, causing an explosion that resulted in the ship becoming a total loss. The matter was taken to arbitration. Judgment. The arbitrator found that that the defendant's negligence caused the plank to fall, and the falling plank caused the fire. The arbitrators awarded damages to the plaintiff. The defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed that the defendant was liable . Although the fire itself may not have been foreseeable, it was held that the defendant would nevertheless be liable for all direct consequences of his actions. The court reasoned that if the act would or might probably cause damage, the fact that the damage it in fact causes is not the exact kind of damage one would expect is immaterial, so long as the damage is in fact directly traceable to the "negligent act" and not due to the operation of independent causes. Significance. Although the stevedore would have foreseen that careless loading might cause some damage to the workers , cargo, or the ship, it was beyond probability that the actual total loss would occur, yet the defendant was held fully liable. The "Re Polemis" decision was disapproved of, and its test replaced, in the later decision of the Privy Council in the "Wagon Mound (No. 1)" . "Re Polemis" has yet to be overruled by an English court and is still technically "good law". However, it was disapproved by the Privy Council, whose decisions are not binding but are strongly persuasive on English courts. The upshot is that the strict liability principle in "Re Polemis" has not been followed , and the case may be considered "bad law". An exception that still applies is the "talem qualem" rule, (or "eggshell skull rule"), which means "you take your victim as you find him"; but this applies ONLY to personal injury, as in "Smith v Leech Brain". Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd "In Re" Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd (1921) is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be deemed liable for all consequences flowing from his negligent conduct regardless of how unforeseeable such consequences are