McGhee v National Coal Board
Where the defendant's breach materially increased the risk of the injury that occurred, this may be treated as a material contribution to the injury.
Facts
Mr McGhee worked cleaning out brick kilns, which exposed him to brick dust. His employers did not provide washing facilities, so he had to cycle home caked in dust. He developed dermatitis. The medical evidence was that the dust caused the dermatitis, but it could not be shown whether the employers' failure to provide showers had caused it, because it could not be said whether he would have developed it if he had been able to wash. It could only be said that the lack of washing facilities had increased the risk.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the employers were liable. Lord Reid said that, from a broad and practical viewpoint, there was no substantial difference between saying that what the defender did materially increased the risk of injury to the pursuer and saying that what the defender did made a material contribution to his injury. Lord Wilberforce suggested that the burden of proof should shift to the defendant, a view later rejected in Wilsher. The case was reinterpreted in Fairchild as establishing a special rule 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
- 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
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.
