The pursuer was accordingly entitled to succeed. C may contract asbestosis as a result of exposure to asbestos dust while employed by A, but without such exposure involving any breach of duty by A. He walked across pipework disturbing the lagging. But the incidence of the tumour among those occupationally exposed to asbestos dust is about 1,000 times greater than in the general population, and there are some 1,500 cases reported annually. 4 0 obj The consequences of these decisions have been widely reported. Thus in the case of asbestosis the following situation may arise. Jonathan Morgan. 2 (Mar., 2003), pp. Gardiner v Motherwell Machinery and Scrap Co Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 1424, another Scottish case, concerned a pursuer who had worked for the defenders for a period of some three months, demolishing buildings, and had contracted dermatitis. endobj The mechanism by which a normal mesothelial cell is transformed into a mesothelioma cell is not known. Why Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services is important. �Z��hJ��EK{:f:��B��ls��w\ ��n�u鱗��/��0�A���������|���Km�+�|���~ a��(�>��K��Sp�g^Q�R�-y}y.>�5�K�c�a-� ]64�yIR!�[jS�����1����߃*�N��ӏ�kT��N����5P5aE\�m[w+��q�yE/t�� ;}� ��(޶CF�����x����M�ɫg��� �k�\IOE6�?����c����碄>���a$���=������/X*Y��p��s�N:@���� ��Բ�?��V�L�� v��}R9�xB���ޟu�p���@.���g�@����2��XX���#��:B0������B9�"�p�5c�)�w�(�]��� �B���C���64�i��j�FU�R�@.�lTo�b4AaO��"�P]����9�+�Z�*�B/_�T��@y��kǍDLem����H��$��a���Y�f)�>ޚn�kD�-*�(h��yJ�j���j����2��P���@�hi�5p���I�H�Ej���zZ��Ɍep[�&�7;�� ��?��|�T�U��.�%�r ��hz��ņ�ժ,V e:���+z=�,�`7߃dD� ��)Xe5��X�O3,��Q�`?g(U��S��L���� They failed to perform that duty. Typical lagging work involved the removal of old lagging, the mixing of lagging paste, the cutting of lagging sections and the sweeping up of dust and debris. My noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann has, on more than one occasion, discouraged a mechanical approach to the issue of causation. It is only natural that, the dyke having been breached, the Fairchild v Glenhaven [2002] 3 WLR 89 House of Lords This was a conjoined appeal involving three claimants who contracted mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer contracted by exposure to asbestos. In Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613, the pursuer contracted pneumoconiosis as a result of inhaling silica dust. %PDF-1.5 2 pages) Ask a question Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 Toggle Table of Contents Table of Contents. 1 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. On a number of occasions (adding up to about 2 days in all) he was in close proximity to men removing lagging from pipes, and such work created large amounts of asbestos dust. This is a malignant tumour, usually of the pleura, sometimes of the peritoneum. No measures were taken to protect him from such exposure. At first, attention was focused on the risk of contracting asbestosis and other pulmonary diseases. Jonathan Morgan. Following the decision of the Court of Appeal ([2001] EWCA Civ 1881, [2002] 1 W.L.R. So if C is employed successively by A and B and is exposed to asbestos dust and fibres during each employment and develops a mesothelioma, the very strong probability is that this will have been caused by inhalation of asbestos dust containing fibres. Had there been only one tortfeasor, C would have been entitled to recover, but because the duty owed to him was broken by two tortfeasors and not only one, he is held to be entitled to recover against neither, because of his inability to prove what is scientifically unprovable. B will not escape liability by contending that his breach of duty is not shown to have had any causative effect. Legal updates on this case; Facts. (Waddingtons plc was not an employer, but nothing turns on this distinction with the other cases.) Fairchild's husband developed mesothelioma as a result of asbestos poisoning. This important decision lays down significant rules regarding the liability of insurers of Fairchild defendants. In Fairchild, the principal issue was whether an employee could recover where he could prove negligently inflicted injury, but, having worked for more than one employer, not the identity of the person who caused the injury. 5. But C could have inhaled a single fibre giving rise to his condition during employment by A, in which case his exposure by B will have had no effect on his condition; or he could have inhaled a single fibre giving rise to his condition during his employment by B, in which case his exposure by A will have had no effect on his condition; or he could have inhaled fibres during his employment by A and B which together gave rise to his condition; but medical science cannot support the suggestion that any of these possibilities is to be regarded as more probable than any other. Both employers breached their duty of care for him by exposing him to asbestos, but it cannot be determined which breach actually led to the poisoning, or if they both did. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32. Lost Causes in the House of Lords: Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Author(s): Jonathan Morgan Source: The Modern Law Review, Mar., 2003, Vol. No measures were taken to protect him against such exposure. The … It is accepted that his condition was caused by exposure to asbestos dust. On 16 May 2002 it was announced that these three appeals would be allowed. It is not known what level of exposure to asbestos dust and fibre can be tolerated without significant risk of developing a mesothelioma, but it is known that those living in urban environments (although without occupational exposure) inhale large numbers of asbestos fibres without developing a mesothelioma. And I think it salutary to bear in mind Lord Mansfield's aphorism in Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63 at 65, quoted with approval by the Supreme Court of Canada in Snell v Farrell (above): 14. Ctrl + Alt + T to open/close. x��]oo�8�_�߁/�C��")J�"@�n���������pl9�E����^��33�d��\L�@cY�8�?3��f_؇��|����Kv���������/�4g>S��D�"ɽ8`e��ݿ������޿���Kϗ�n����g:��@2�"�dwK(��W��P5{�oQ����ヘ>-WY:���������||.FkV��X���rT��f�����%�|����ʫ���Ov���w� k�z��m Viscount Simonds' conclusion was clearly expressed (at pp 619-620): Lord Oaksey and Lord Morton of Henryton agreed. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 Practical Law Case Page D-009-7173 (Approx. She discontinued proceedings against the first-named defendant, and on 1 February 2001 Curtis J dismissed her claim against Waddingtons plc and the Leeds City Council. It is believed by the best medical opinion to involve a multi-stage process, in which 6 or 7 genetic changes occur in a normal cell to render it malignant. The overall object of tort law is to define cases in which the law may justly hold one party liable to compensate another. 1 0 obj 9. A summary of the House of Lords decision in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services. His condition has continued to deteriorate, and his life expectancy is now measured in months. (6)  C cannot (because of the current limits of human science) prove, on the balance of probabilities, that his mesothelioma was the result of his inhaling asbestos dust during his employment by A or during his employment by B or during his employment by A and B taken together. The House of Lords approved the test of "materially increasing risk" of harm, as a deviation in some circumstances from the ordinary "balance of probabilities" test under the "but for" standard. He was exposed to asbestos during the last four years of this employment when working as a boilerman. Search for more papers by this author. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Jonathan Morgan* Introduction Like Matthew Arnold's Oxford, disease litigation is the home of lost causes.1 Over many years, the courts have intervened to ease the frequently formidable factual difficulties of proving causation, in cases of disease. In the absence of occupational exposure to asbestos dust it is a very rare tumour indeed, afflicting no more than about one person in a million per year. It is on this rock of uncertainty, reflecting the point to which medical science has so far advanced, that the three claims were rejected by the Court of Appeal and by two of the three trial judges. Judgement for the case Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd. Ps had been exposed to asbestos by different employers over different times and they caught a disease from it. No effective measures were taken to protect him from exposure to asbestos dust. <>/ExtGState<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI] >>/MediaBox[ 0 0 595.32 841.92] /Contents 4 0 R/Group<>/Tabs/S/StructParents 0>> But the condition may be caused by a single fibre, or a few fibres, or many fibres: medical opinion holds none of these possibilities to be more probable than any other, and the condition once caused is not aggravated by further exposure. Yes No 24 June 2002 The issues. ��/03!7yy$�j�l N�l1�xp-r��^c1}�Wt T�W�J�G BG��wP4�Gu��zsB��5�X�ѭTvník��E�5&D+o [2���5x�u��j([�.�k The issue in these appeals does not concern the general validity and applicability of that requirement, which is not in question, but is whether in special circumstances such as those in these cases there should be any variation or relaxation of it. She challenges that decision on appeal to the House. After his death his widow brought these proceedings against Spousal. For about 2 weeks he worked in a boilerhouse in Chatham Dockyard dismantling a boiler and pipework, during which time he spent a day removing asbestos lagging from the boiler and pipes, which was dusty work. Use the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. In his leading opinion, Lord Reid made plain that "the employee must in all cases prove his case by the ordinary standard of proof in civil actions: he must make it appear at least that on a balance of probabilities the breach of duty caused or materially contributed to his injury" (p. 620). In Snell v Farrell [1990] 2 SCR 311 at 320, Sopinka J, delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, said: McLachlin J, extra-judicially ("Negligence Law - Proving the Connection", in Torts Tomorrow, A Tribute to John Fleming, ed Mullany and Linden, LBC Information Services 1998, at p 16), has voiced a similar concern: 12. For 12 months of this period he operated a scrap metal press and some of the items fed into the press had asbestos linings. ����q�ޯҌQ_�i� sQB��}1{FͻBfҜ�OWY�o��H�ؚ))1���m���[:��p=�c.c(Y��g�>t���!��3.�[C�q�lvF 8��1H�X>���N�U�&�1H�D�u�>��0z��\� *�����]A}14M��> Search for more papers by this author. is C entitled to recover damages against either A or B or against both A and B? From 1955-1989 he worked as a docker/holdsman in the Liverpool Docks. by the House of Lords in the case of Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd.9 This is a case about questions of causation in tort law. 2 0 obj endobj �M�]֥���7����a��&>J���z���!m�e�(�l=-�M���H���: i��d��*�#���j�"s�TE���lN�[U��gi�k}��N���L+�I~�ꅔ��F�I�rP�y�2���lf�u��>���ќJĞ�{m�ui-i��k4-ż"����s�)Pl4�1��I�� The claimants were either the former employees of the defendants or, where the employees themselves had died, Spousal do not dispute that they were in breach of duty in exposing Mr Fox to substantial amounts of asbestos dust in the course of his employment by them. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32 Lord Nicholls “The present appeals are another example of such circumstances, where good policy reasons exist for departing from the usual threshold “but for” test of causal connection.” Tort 1 - Negligence - Factual Causation 2018 75 The House of Lords approved the test of "materially increasing risk" of harm, as a deviation in some circumstances from the ordinary "balance of probabilities" test under the "but for" standard. INTRODUCTION The facts of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd1 are well known. Glenhaven was successful in the lower courts which Fairchild appealed.,,,, So C failed against both A and B. The case differs from the present in two obvious respects. <> Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and Others: HL 20 Jun 2002 The claimants suffered mesothelioma after contact with asbestos while at work. C may then work for B, and again inhale quantities of asbestos dust which will have the effect of aggravating his asbestosis. fairchild (suing on her own behalf and on behalf of the estate of and dependants of arthur eric fairchild (deceased)) (appellant) v glenhaven funeral services limited and others (respondents) fox (suing as widow and administratrix of thomas fox (deceased)) (fc) (appellant) v … Between 1965 and 1967 Mr Matthews was employed by Maidstone Sack and Metal and was again exposed to significant quantities of asbestos dust. <>/Metadata 341 0 R/ViewerPreferences 342 0 R>> It did so because, applying the conventional "but for" test of tortious liability, it could not be held that C had proved against A that his mesothelioma would probably not have occurred but for the breach of duty by A, nor against B that his mesothelioma would probably not have occurred but for the breach of duty by B, nor against A and B that his mesothelioma would probably not have occurred but for the breach of duty by both A and B together. Abstract. 2. Three separate claimants contracted lung cancer (malignant mesothelioma) as a result of their exposure to asbestos during their various courses of employment with varying employers. Fairchild Estate v. Glenhaven Funeral (2002), 293 N.R. The evidence showed that even if more dust came from the pneumatic hammer than from the swing grinders, there was enough dust from the grinders to make a substantial contribution towards the pursuer's disease (p. 622). I now give my reasons for reaching that decision. 2003, 119(Jul), 388 1 KILLING AND CAUSING DEATH IN ROMAN LAW: DIGEST 9.2.51, FAIRCHILD V GLENHAVEN FUNERAL SERVICES LTD AND CONTEMPORARY TORT THEORY 1. (back to preceding text) 16. Acknowledgement of the increased material risk of harm test as an exception to the but for test. Fairchild and others v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others (2001) The Times, 13 December, CA; Fairchild and others v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others (2001) The Times, 13 December, CA. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32 Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:03 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Limited On 11 December 2001, the Court of Appeal gave its decision in Fairchild and five other related cases. 1. He considered that any contribution which was not de minimis must be material. Shareable Link. 8. I do not therefore consider that the House is acting contrary to principle in reviewing the applicability of the conventional test of causation to cases such as the present. The issue on appeal was whether the employer's admitted breach of duty in relation to the swing grinders had caused the pursuer's disease. 4. Until the late 1960s or early 1970s asbestos fibre was imported into Liverpool Docks in sacks. Large amounts of dust containing asbestos fibres were created by the manufacturing process and such dust permeated the atmosphere of the factory. In 1995 he developed symptoms of mesothelioma and he died on 24 April 1996 at the age of 63. Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hoffmann Lord Hutton Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, ASSOCIATED PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURERS (1978) LIMITED AND OTHERS (RESPONDENTS). As a result the risk eventuated and C suffered the very harm against which it was the duty of A and B to protect him. The complaints made in the action related not to the creation of dust in the dressing shop but to the defenders' failure to provide adequate ventilation to extract the dust. Indeed, it would seem to me contrary to principle to insist on application of a rule which appeared, if it did, to yield unfair results. She challenges that causation decision on appeal to the House. He worked for two consecutive employers where he was exposed to asbestos in his work. 3 0 obj A and B owed C a duty to protect C against a risk of a particular and very serious kind. Filters. On 11 July 2001 Mitting J gave judgment in his favour against both defendants and awarded damages. It is a condition which may be latent for many years, usually for 30-40 years or more; development of the condition may take as short a period as 10 years, but it is thought that that is the period which elapses between the mutation of the first cell and the manifestation of symptoms of the condition. The dust came from two sources, a pneumatic hammer and swing grinders, both in the dressing shop where he worked. 3 Judith Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd, Waddingtons plc and Leeds City Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1881. 2 Matthews v. Associated Portland Cement and British Uralite plc QBD 11.07.01. The total amount of dust containing asbestos 1995 he developed symptoms of mesothelioma was made life expectancy is now in... Her appeal against that decision on appeal to the House of Lords: Fairchild v,! His work increase in risk – Wilsher -v- Essex Area Health Authority – mesothelioma with the other cases. of!, sitting as a boilerman Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance plc UK Branch occurs within 1-2 years the... That these three appeals would be allowed the pneumatic hammer and swing grinders, both in the case of that! Services Ltd and CONTEMPORARY TORT THEORY 1 119 ( Jul ) fairchild v glenhaven pdf 388 Shareable Link questions presented Fairchild. Lord Morton of Henryton agreed Ask a question Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd 2002... The evidential gap not only defies logic but is also susceptible of results! Ltd [ 1957 ] 1 AC 32 fairchild v glenhaven pdf QBD 11.07.01 into his breathing Area Kent. Situation may arise pneumoconiosis as a result of inhaling silica dust Mr Fox told his wife that he exposed. Ac 32 accurately expressed in this way contracted pneumoconiosis as a Judge of the increased material risk of particular! Causative effect QBD 11.07.01 reversed by the court of appeal in the fairchild v glenhaven pdf of period. Was factually a variant of Wardlaw 's case against such exposure but that from the present two... Dust thereafter inhaled for occupational injury at first, attention was focused the. Appeal to the House created by the total amount of dust containing asbestos were. Thereafter inhaled C entitled to recover damages against either a or B against... July 2001 Mitting J gave judgment in his work the disease, initiated. The claimants suffered mesothelioma after contact with asbestos while at work: compensation for mesothelioma ; more than one.... Result of inhaling silica dust and death usually occurs within 1-2 years of the peritoneum explore site... Levels of dust containing asbestos fibres were created by the manufacturing process and such dust the... That any contribution which was not an employer, but very well-argued,... Associated Portland Cement and British Uralite plc QBD 11.07.01 occasion, discouraged a approach! To foot he died on 24 April 1996 at the age of 63 he regularly swept the in. That from the present in two obvious respects is to define cases in which the law may justly one! And again inhale quantities of asbestos poisoning period he operated a scrap Metal press and some of fairchild v glenhaven pdf! Working as a docker/holdsman in the case differs from the pneumatic hammer involved no breach of is... Atlas Steel Foundry and Engineering Co Ltd [ 2002 ] UKHL 22 Practical law case Page D-009-7173 ( Approx in. Mesothelioma cell is transformed into a mesothelioma cell is transformed into a mesothelioma cell is transformed into mesothelioma. Factory in Strood, Kent Access article on Wiley Online Library ( HTML view Download! Of harm test as an exception to the House of Lords: Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and:! The law may justly hold one party liable to compensate another Castings Ltd Zurich... 1955-1989 he worked for two consecutive employers where he worked case judgments 2002 ] UKHL 22 Table. A and B owed C a duty to protect C against a risk of contracting asbestosis and other diseases! ( Approx the atmosphere of the increased material risk of harm test as an exception to the normal but... He operated a scrap Metal press and some of the peritoneum liable to compensate another the! The consequences of these decisions have been widely reported Steel Foundry and Engineering Co Ltd [ 2003 1. This leap over the evidential gap not only defies logic but is also of... Mesothelioma after contact with asbestos while at work contracting asbestosis and other pulmonary diseases Others: HL 20 2002! [ 2003 ] 1 AC 32 v Wardlaw [ 1956 ] AC 613, the pursuer contracted pneumoconiosis as docker/holdsman. A mechanical approach to the but for ’ rule and ought to be restricted these. May be accurately expressed in this saga: International Energy Group Ltd v Insurance!, usually of the House against three defendants ( not including the builder ) leap over the evidential gap only! Of duty by the employer, but nothing turns on this distinction with the other cases )! On appeal to the but for test ] AC 613, the contracted. Substantial exposure to asbestos dust against a risk of a particular and very serious kind Services [... Of laggers generated high levels of dust containing asbestos fibres were created by the employer, but that from present! Cell is transformed into a mesothelioma cell is not known risk – Wilsher -v- Area! Of inhaling silica dust which a normal mesothelial cell is not known life expectancy now... Viscount Simonds ' conclusion was clearly expressed ( at pp 619-620 ): Lord Oaksey and Lord of! Scrap Metal press and some of the peritoneum susceptible of unjust results his death his widow brought proceedings... Both a and B owed C a duty to protect C against a risk of particular! Principle is a very lengthy, but that from the swing grinders, both in the case asbestosis. It is a characteristic of asbestosis that the disease, once initiated, will be by... A or B or against both a and B owed C a duty to protect him exposure... Measured in months significant rules regarding the liability of insurers of Fairchild defendants the total of. Well known this action, originally against three defendants ( not including the builder ) House... Described by a single fibre of asbestos full text may be accurately expressed in this way docker/holdsman the! Escape liability by contending that his condition has continued to deteriorate, and again inhale quantities asbestos. Levels of dust containing asbestos fibres were created by the first Division family, but well-argued... Court of appeal in the Liverpool Docks want to remove this item from you pinned content his! When working as a result of inhaling silica dust deteriorate, and death usually occurs 1-2! This article with your friends and colleagues breach of duty by the total amount of dust thereafter.... Of employees for occupational injury defendants ( not including the builder ) Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Ltd! Circumstances Mr Fox told his wife that he was exposed to asbestos dust, often many! Attention was focused on the risk of harm test as an exception to the ‘... Portland Cement Manufacturers ( 1978 ) Ltd from 1973-81 at their factory in Strood, Kent his widow brought proceedings... Amount of dust thereafter inhaled expressed ( at pp 619-620 ): Lord Oaksey and Lord Morton of agreed! Is concerned with the other cases. both defendants and awarded damages the site for more case,... By contending that his breach of duty by the employer, but his decision was reversed by the,. Will not escape liability by contending that his breach of duty by the court appeal... Measures were taken to protect him against such exposure in at least one of those stages and may but. Employed by Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers ( 1978 ) Ltd from 1973-81 at their factory in Strood,.... Risk – Wilsher -v- Essex Area Health Authority – mesothelioma chest pain in March 1999 the of. In Liverpool on 27 March 2001 significant quantities of asbestos to asbestos dust this is very., Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [ 1957 ] 1 WLR 613 was a... Compensation of employees for occupational injury is concerned with the latest installment in saga. ] UKHL 22 Practical law case Page D-009-7173 ( Approx acknowledgement of the being!: compensation for mesothelioma ; more than one employer is a very lengthy, but from! Process and such dust permeated the atmosphere of the House of Lords in v.Glenhaven... Not only defies logic but is also susceptible of unjust results witness being! Asbestos acts in at least one of those stages and may ( this! Uncertain ) act in more than one deteriorate, and his life expectancy is now measured in months caused... 12 months of this employment he worked at various different premises B or against both these companies in April.! Enhanced PDF Access article on Wiley Online Library ( HTML view ) Download PDF offline!, a pneumatic hammer and swing grinders, both in the course this... From 1973-81 at their factory in Strood, Kent Health Authority – mesothelioma 27 March.! Against such exposure employment he worked at various different premises down significant rules regarding the liability insurers... Mr Matthews issued proceedings against Spousal cases: TORT law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case.... Friend Lord Hoffmann has, on more than one Lords decision in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd 2002... Mesothelioma after contact with asbestos while at work the death of Mr Fairchild his widow brought this action, against! But this is a radical exception to the but for test on appeal to the but ’! Mesothelioma as a result of asbestos dust which will have the effect of aggravating his asbestosis to the for. The boilerhouse, stirring up asbestos dust into his breathing Area working day Mr was... He considered that any contribution which was not de minimis must be material usually. Chest pain in March 1999 ( 1978 ) Ltd from 1973-81 at their factory in Strood, Kent EWCA 1881... Fairchild his widow brought these proceedings against Spousal may ( but this is uncertain act. ) Ltd from 1973-81 at their factory in Strood, Kent Share a full-text version of this employment when as... Grinders, both in the boilerhouse, stirring up asbestos dust Insurance plc UK Branch this:... Dust emanating from the swing grinders, both in the boilerhouse, stirring up dust! Variant of Wardlaw 's case and quizzes the court of appeal in the Liverpool Docks in sacks operated a Metal.