Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Pink v. Fleming

    Uploaded by

    ATHENAS
    The case involved an insurance claim for damage to a cargo of oranges and lemons after the ship carrying them collided with another vessel. Due to necessary repairs after the collision, the fruits had to be discharged into lighters and reloaded, which damaged them from handling and decay during the longer voyage. The court ruled the damage was not recoverable under the insurance policy because the proximate cause was the perishable nature of the cargo combined with the handling and delay, not the collision itself. While the collision caused the need for repairs, under English marine insurance law the last direct cause must be regarded, not previous indirect causes, so the insurance claim for damage from the handling and decay was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pink v. Fleming

    Uploaded by

    ATHENAS
    1K views2 pages
    The case involved an insurance claim for damage to a cargo of oranges and lemons after the ship carrying them collided with another vessel. Due to necessary repairs after the collision, the fruits had to be discharged into lighters and reloaded, which damaged them from handling and decay during the longer voyage. The court ruled the damage was not recoverable under the insurance policy because the proximate cause was the perishable nature of the cargo combined with the handling and delay, not the collision itself. While the collision caused the need for repairs, under English marine insurance law the last direct cause must be regarded, not previous indirect causes, so the insurance claim for damage from the handling and decay was denied.

    Original Description:

    case analysis

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved an insurance claim for damage to a cargo of oranges and lemons after the ship carrying them collided with another vessel. Due to necessary repairs after the collision, the fruits had to be discharged into lighters and reloaded, which damaged them from handling and decay during the longer voyage. The court ruled the damage was not recoverable under the insurance policy because the proximate cause was the perishable nature of the cargo combined with the handling and delay, not the collision itself. While the collision caused the need for repairs, under English marine insurance law the last direct cause must be regarded, not previous indirect causes, so the insurance claim for damage from the handling and decay was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Pink v. Fleming

    Uploaded by

    ATHENAS
    The case involved an insurance claim for damage to a cargo of oranges and lemons after the ship carrying them collided with another vessel. Due to necessary repairs after the collision, the fruits had to be discharged into lighters and reloaded, which damaged them from handling and decay during the longer voyage. The court ruled the damage was not recoverable under the insurance policy because the proximate cause was the perishable nature of the cargo combined with the handling and delay, not the collision itself. While the collision caused the need for repairs, under English marine insurance law the last direct cause must be regarded, not previous indirect causes, so the insurance claim for damage from the handling and decay was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Sakshi, Banaras Hindu University.

    Pink v. Fleming,

    Citation: (1890) 25 QBD 396

    Queen’s Bench, United Kingdom


    Bench: Lord Justice Fisher, Lord Justice Lindley.

    PETITIONER

    PINK

           Vs.

    FLEMING

    FACTS OF THE CASE.


     The insurance was on a cargo of oranges and lemons, and was warranted free from partial
    loss or damaged unless such loss or damage was "consequent upon collision" with any other
    ship. A vessel was in collision during the voyage and to put into a port for repairs. In order
    that these repairs might be effected it was necessary to discharge the fruits into lighters and
    subsequently reload it. When the vessel arrived at her destination it was found that the fruits
    was considerably damaged, partly by handling involved in putting into the lighters and
    reloading it, and partly from natural decay which, in consequent of its perishable nature,
    arose owing to the decay in the voyage.

    ISSUES OF THE CASE


    Whether or not this damaged to the fruits was consequent on or caused by collision within the
    meaning of the policy??

    HOLDING
    It was decided that the loss was not recoverable as "the proximate cause of the loss was not
    collision or any peril of the sea, but the perishable character of the cargo combined with the
    handling and the delay".

    RATIONALE
    The court opined that if it had not been for the repairs, and for the removal of the cargo for the
    purposes of such repairs, and for the consequent delay and handling of the fruit, the loss would not
    have happened. The collision may be said to have been a cause, and an effective cause, of the ship’s
    putting into a port and of repairs being necessary. For the purpose of such repairs, it was necessary to
    remove the fruit, and such removal necessarily caused damage to it. The agent, however, which
    proximately caused the damage to the fruit was the handling, though no doubt the cause of the
    handling was the repairs, and the cause of the repairs was the collision. According to the English law
    of marine insurance only the last cause may be regarded. There is nothing in the policy to say that the
    underwriters will be liable for loss occasioned by that. To connect the loss with any peril mentioned in
    the policy, the plaintiffs must go back two steps, and that, according to English law, they are not
    entitled to do.

    You might also like