Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd
Where a claimant has contracted mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos by several negligent employers, and it cannot be proved which exposure caused the disease, each employer that materially increased the risk is liable.
Facts
Mr Fairchild and the other claimants developed mesothelioma, a fatal cancer of the lining of the lungs, caused by exposure to asbestos dust. Each of them had worked for more than one employer, each of which had negligently exposed him to asbestos. Mesothelioma can be caused by a single fibre, and medical science could not determine which employer's asbestos had caused the disease. Under the but for test, the claimants could not prove that any particular employer had caused it.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that each employer was liable. Lord Bingham said that, where an employee has been exposed to asbestos by more than one employer in breach of duty, and has developed mesothelioma, and it cannot be proved which exposure caused the disease, each employer whose breach materially increased the risk of the employee contracting the disease is liable. It would be unjust to deny the claimants a remedy because of the limits of medical science. The House treated McGhee as an example of the same principle, and emphasised that this was an exception to the ordinary rules of causation.
Related cases on causation
- Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467
- Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20, [2006] 2 AC 572
- 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
- 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.
