Barker v Corus UK Ltd
Under the Fairchild exception, a defendant's liability is limited to a share of the damages proportionate to its contribution to the risk, a rule reversed for mesothelioma by statute.
Facts
Mr Barker developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos during three periods: while working for a company that later became insolvent, while working for Corus's predecessor, and while self employed, when he had not taken adequate precautions himself. The question was whether Corus was liable for the whole of his loss, under Fairchild, or only for a share.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that, under the Fairchild exception, a defendant is liable only for the proportion of the damage that reflects its contribution to the risk, because liability is based on the creation of a material risk rather than on causing the disease. Lord Hoffmann said that it would be unfair to make a defendant liable for the whole damage when it may not have caused the disease at all. The exception also applied where one of the exposures was by the claimant himself or was not negligent. Parliament reversed the decision for mesothelioma in section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006, which makes each responsible person liable for the whole damage, jointly and severally.
Related cases on causation
- Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467
- Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428
- Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613
- Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41, [2005] 1 AC 134
- Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32
- Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2, [2005] 2 AC 176
- Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750
- Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982] AC 794
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
