- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd (2002)
I. Core Principle:
Lord Hoffmann outlined five factors that strengthen the argument for causation when proving which employer created harm is not possible.
I. Core Principle:
- In cases where a claimant's injury (specifically mesothelioma from asbestos exposure) may have been caused by multiple negligent parties, and it's impossible to determine which party was specifically responsible for the harm, each party can be held jointly and severally liable for the full damage. This means the claimant can recover the full amount of damages from any one of the negligent parties.
- Multiple claimants developed mesothelioma (a cancer caused by asbestos exposure).
- Each claimant had been negligently exposed to asbestos by multiple employers.
- The claimants could not prove which specific exposure to asbestos caused their mesothelioma. This was due to the nature of the disease and the limitations of medical science.
- The House of Lords ruled that if multiple defendants negligently exposed the claimant to a risk of harm (asbestos exposure leading to mesothelioma), and that harm materialized (the claimant developed mesothelioma), all or any of the defendants could be held liable, even if it's impossible to pinpoint which exposure caused the disease. This shifts the burden of potential loss from the innocent claimant to the negligent employers.
Lord Hoffmann outlined five factors that strengthen the argument for causation when proving which employer created harm is not possible.
- Particular Duty: The defendant had a specific duty to protect the claimant from the risk of asbestos exposure.
- Civil Right to Compensation: The duty was intended to create a civil right allowing the claimant to seek compensation if harmed.
- Exposure and Risk Correlation: A greater exposure to the risk (asbestos) correlates with a greater chance of developing the harm (mesothelioma). The more they were exposed, the higher the chance of developing the disease.
- Medical Uncertainty: Medical science is unable to determine which specific exposure caused the mesothelioma.
- Harm Materializes: The claimant actually developed the harm that the duty was supposed to prevent; in this case, mesothelioma.
- Policy Considerations: The House of Lords was influenced by policy considerations, believing it was fairer for a negligent party to bear the financial burden than the innocent victim.
- Proportionate Liability (Distinction from Sindell v. Abbott Labs): The case presents a contrast to the Sindell v. Abbott Labs case. In Sindell, the court held manufacturers liable in proportion to their market share. Fairchild establishes joint and several liability.
- Causation: Fairchild lowers the bar for establishing causation, as the pursuer only needs to prove that the defender materially contributed to the risk of harm, rather than directly causing the harm itself.
- Fairness: It prevents negligent employers from escaping liability simply because the exact cause of mesothelioma is difficult to pinpoint.
- Precedent: Sets a precedent for cases involving injuries with multiple potential causes, particularly in industrial disease cases.
- Burden of Proof: Shifts the focus from proving direct causation to proving a material contribution to the risk of harm.
0 Comments