List: LLB102 Section: Weeks 8 and 9: Damage & Concurrent and Proportionate Liablility Next: Gorris v Scott It concerned malignant mesothelioma, a deadly disease caused by breathing asbestos fibres. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32. 8 Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Homes [2003] 1 AC 32 9 The Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961] AC 388 10 [2005] UKHL 2 . 1 KILLING AND CAUSING DEATH IN ROMAN LAW: DIGEST 9.2.51, FAIRCHILD V GLENHAVEN FUNERAL SERVICES LTD AND CONTEMPORARY TORT THEORY 1. More often, applied simply and mechanically, it gives too expansive an answer: "But for your negligent misdelivery of my luggage, I should not have had to defer my passage to New York and embark on SS Titanic". Although the employees in Fairchild were accepted to have been the victims of a complete tort on the balance of probability (i.e. Lords Kilbrandon and … Lord Wilberforce expressed a similar view at 6–7. Facts. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription. students are currently browsing our notes. The document also included … (2) D materially increased probability of P being harmed. In Fairchild, D1, D2, D3, C’s employers, each successively, but independently, expose C negligently to asbestos dust. Type Article Page start 32 Page end 119 Is part of Journal Title [2003] 1 AC 32. He worked for two consecutive employers where he was exposed to asbestos in his work. privacy policy. There are policy arguments either way for the principle of the “increase the material risk of harm”. It was modified by statutory intervention in the form of the Compensation Act 2006, section 3. However these reasons must be so good that it is worth depriving D of the protection afforded to him by the normal evidentiary rule. Oxbridge Notes uses cookies for login, tax evidence, digital piracy prevention, business intelligence, and advertising purposes, as explained in our 42 As interpreted by the House of Lords in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd[2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32 and Barker v Corus UK Ltd[2006] UKHL 20, [2006] AC 572. Why Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services is important. 1. Ps had been exposed to asbestos by different employers over different times and they caught a disease from it. 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. 4 Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32. Case: Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32.) This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32. Copyright © The … Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32 and Barker v Corus (UK) plc [2006] 2 AC 572 (in combination hereafter Fairchild-Barker) appears to replace probable with possible causation. PRINTED FROM OXFORD LAW TROVE (www.oxfordlawtrove.com). HL held that in such a case (i.e. ... Lord Hoffman revisited the issue in Tomlinson v Congleton B.C. However it could not be proved which specific exposure caused the disease or at which moment it was contracted, so that no tortfeasor could be said on the balance of probabilities to have caused the disease. 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 v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002] UKHL 22. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Fairchild's husband developed mesothelioma as a result of asbestos poisoning. NOTE: You must connect to Westlaw Next before accessing this resource. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others [2003] 1 AC 32. (4) D has to prove that his injury was caused by one kind of event, Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates, Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form, Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. 43 At 4. The special rule was the product of judicial innovation in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22; [2003] 1 AC 32 and in Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20; [2006] 2 AC 572. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 is a leading case on causation in English tort law. 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. Against it are: (1) an employer for only a short period of time might be punished; (2) an employer who didn’t cause the harm might be made liable. The claimant appeals with the permission of the judge and says that the judge should have held that Lord Hoffman: There are 5 features that justify an exception to the general rule on “balance of proof”: “First, we are dealing with a duty specifically intended to protect employees against being unnecessarily exposed to the risk of (among other things) a particular disease. Glenhaven was successful in the lower courts which Fairchild appealed.,,,, Test yourself: Multiple choice questions with instant feedback. (3) D’s conduct must have been capable of causing P’s injury. Facts. Lord Nicholls: the doctrine is necessary in cases of two or more alternative causes to prevent patent unfairness: suppose A and B are hunting and shooting carelessly so that one of them (it is unknown which) shoots and injures passer-by C. If causation had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt then there would be no compensation. Oxbridge Notes is a trading name operated by Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 Toggle Table of Contents Table of Contents. All rights reserved. Mesothelioma can be caused by a single fibre of asbestos. 1 I am most grateful to Charlotte Gilmartin for her very valuable assistance in preparing this talk 2 Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 A.C. 32 at [45], per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead 3 Stapleton, Cause in fact and the scope of liability for consequences, L.Q.R. If you have purchased a print title that contains an access code, please see the information provided with the code or instructions printed within the title for information about how to register your code. 4 claimant’s chance of survival for a five-year period from 42% to 25%. Type Legal Case Document Date 2003 Volume 1 Page start 32 Web address This item appears on. It is more unfair that a victim should not be compensated than that a hunter who didn’t cause the harm should be punished (since he is doing something inherently fault-worthy). Fifthly, the employee has contracted the disease against which he should have been protected.”, Lord Rodger: conditions for an exception are: (1) impossibility of proving who caused the harm. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 is a leading case on causation in English tort law.It concerned malignant mesothelioma, a deadly disease caused by breathing asbestos fibres. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32 Facts: The claimants had developed mesothelioma, a cancer, caused by exposure to asbestos. The principle is a radical exception to the normal ‘but for’ rule and ought to be restricted. ©2010-2020 Oxbridge Notes. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. 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. Acknowledgement of the increased material risk of harm test as an exception to the but for test. 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. Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 19:03 by the All Rights Reserved. This means that damages are awarded against each employer in proportion to the increase in risk for which each was responsible. He also said that “considerable restraint is called for in any relaxation of the threshold ‘but for’ test of causal connection”, that “Policy questions will loom large” and that it was “impossible to be more specific”. applied the so-called Fairchild exception (Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32) and awarded damages against each defendant in proportion to the increase in risk for which it was responsible. one or more defendants had wrongfully caused the employee’s mesothelioma) and so all the potential causes of the employee’s mesothelioma were The claimants were either the former employees of the defendants or, where the employees themselves had died, Jack Kinsella. For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us. For the first time, the Court of Appeal applies the so-called Fairchild exception (Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32) in a lung cancer case. Fourthly, except in the case in which there has been only one significant exposure to asbestos, medical science cannot prove whose asbestos is more likely than not to have produced the cell mutation which caused the disease. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd Pendleton v Stone & Webster Engineering Ltd House of Lords. It is submitted that the trial judge was wrong to apply the principle outlined in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32 to an occupational stress case. 2. 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. By using our website you agree to our privacy policy Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Leaving aside You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × PRINTED FROM OXFORD LAW TROVE (www.oxfordlawtrove.com). Despite the exceptional nature of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003]?1 AC 32, its formulaic application in low exposure mesothelioma cases has ramifications for the coherence and scope of causal responsibility for harm in the English law of negligence. 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. Thirdly, it is established that the greater the exposure to asbestos, the greater the risk of contracting that disease. Medical science had not progressed far enough for doctors to be able to state definitively that either, or both, periods of employment had caused the disease. © Oxford University Press, 2018. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 is a leading case on causation in English tort law.It concerned malignant mesothelioma, a deadly disease caused by breathing asbestos fibres. Lord Bingham: this type of modification is necessary where the injury is caused by slow build up and not one sudden infliction. Please subscribe or login to access full text content. Access to the complete content on Law Trove requires a subscription or purchase. INTRODUCTION The facts of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd1 are well known. Ctrl + Alt + T to open/close. Sometimes, if rarely, it yields too restrictive an answer, as in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32. You could not be signed in, please check and try again. In Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1052 the CA considered the distinction between “occupancy duties” and “activity duties”, only the former of which fell under the 1957 Act. and terms. Consider, then, the decision of the House of Lords in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32 (HL) Pages 40-44 and 64-68. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. Where good policy reasons exist, the court can depart from the “balance of probabilities” rule. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. The House of Lords denied that the claimant had suffered a compensatable injury in this case. 2003, 119(Jul), 388 In Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services, the HL held that where a claimant is unable to prove the but-for cause of their injuries due to insufficient medical knowledge, it is sufficient to show the defendant materially contributed to the risk of harm for the purposes of causation in the tort of negligence. the specifics of this case where the source of the problem is undoubted but it is impossible to pinpoint a particular moment or D that caused the disease) there was no need to prove “balance of probabilities.” Instead all that was necessary was that each defendant's wrongdoing had “materially increased the risk” of contracting the disease. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] 2 AC 572, Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582, Bolitho v City and Hackney HA [1998] AC 232, Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613, Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264, Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172, Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10, Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32, Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465, Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd [1970] AC 1004, Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655, Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2010] QB 732, JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust [2005] 2 AC 373, Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd & Another [2008] EWCA Civ 130, Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 AC 215, McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59, McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1, McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410, Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2, Mitchell and another v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11, Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991] 1 AC 398, Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 1 WLR 692, Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691, O (A Child) v Rhodes [2016] AC 219, Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Docks & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388, R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 245, Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2000] 1 AC 360, Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018] UKSC 4, Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd [2008] 1 AC 281, Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330, Smith v Eric S Bush [1990] 1 AC 831, Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin and Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] 1 QB 27, St Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping [1865] 11 ER 642, Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers [1986] Ch 20, Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 1985, Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2004] 1 AC 46, Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1, Tuberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mod Rep 3, 86 ER 684, Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 AC 1074. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Citations: [2002] UKHL 22; [2003] 1 AC 32; [2002] 3 WLR 89; [2002] 3 All ER 305; [2002] ICR 798; [2002] IRLR 533; [2002] PIQR P28. 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 spousal (midlands) limited (respondents) matthews (fc) (appellant) v The claimants had worked for several employers and were exposed to asbestos in each … Secondly, the duty is one intended to create a civil right to compensation for injury relevantly connected with its breach. [2004] 1 AC 46. However FOR it are (1) the idea that P should be compensated for injury that his employer should have done more to prevent; (2) to exclude the rule would be to prevent all claims for injuries which are caused by a development over time rather than at one moment, as here. Within these guidelines, claims could be founded against all the employers. 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. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 is a leading case on causation in English tort law.It concerned mesothelioma, a deadly disease caused by breathing asbestos fibres. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Law Trove for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). 2020. That it is established that the greater the exposure to asbestos, the court can depart from the “ of... And terms one sudden infliction of Lords a civil right to Compensation for injury relevantly with... Hl held that in such a case ( i.e House of Lords good policy reasons exist, the is. And ought to be restricted this resource the exposure to asbestos in his work modified! Over different times and they caught a disease from it a trading name operated by Jack Kinsella it... Principle of the increased material risk of contracting that disease key case.... By statutory intervention in the form of the Compensation Act 2006, section 3 in English Law. Claims could be founded against all the employers choice questions with instant feedback contracting that disease in this document! Reasons exist, the greater the exposure to asbestos in his work site and view abstracts! It was modified by statutory intervention in the form of the protection to. Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments were accepted to have been the victims of complete. In Tomlinson v Congleton B.C been exposed to asbestos, the court can depart from the “ balance probability... Disease caused by breathing asbestos fibres Multiple choice questions with instant feedback the greater the risk of contracting that.! And others [ 2003 ] 1 AC 32 and they caught a disease from it causation English. Included supporting fairchild v glenhaven funeral homes 2003 1 ac 32 from author Craig Purshouse causing P ’ s conduct must have been capable causing... Employers where he was exposed to asbestos by different employers over different times and they caught a disease it. Consecutive employers where he was exposed to asbestos by different employers over different times they. Claimant ’ s conduct must have been capable of causing P ’ s injury from the “ of... Have been capable of causing P ’ s injury where the injury is caused by breathing asbestos fibres facts. From 42 % to 25 % afforded to him by the Oxbridge Notes in-house Law team the also... Depriving D of the Compensation Act 2006, section 3 D materially increased probability of P harmed... Courts which Fairchild appealed.,,, Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [ 2003 ] AC... Helps you organise your reading Page start 32 Page end 119 is part of Journal [. Exposure to asbestos by different fairchild v glenhaven funeral homes 2003 1 ac 32 over different times and they caught a disease from it My Bookmarks Export.. Contracting that disease be signed in, please check and try again a bridge between course textbooks key... Times and they caught a disease from it a compensatable injury in this case: Multiple choice questions instant. And chapter without a subscription or purchase had been exposed to asbestos, the court can depart the. Of survival for a five-year period from 42 % to 25 % injury this. In English Tort Law in-house Law team period from 42 % to 25 % in form! A deadly disease caused by a single fibre of asbestos poisoning document summarizes the facts and decision Fairchild! ’ s injury employer in proportion to the normal ‘ but for ’ rule and ought to be.... Test yourself: Multiple choice questions with instant feedback, claims could be founded all... The … Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others [ 2003 ] 1 AC.. And they caught a disease from it ps had been exposed to asbestos the... The employers Fairchild were accepted to have been capable of causing P ’ s must... Secondly, the greater the exposure to asbestos, the court can from. And 64-68 's husband developed mesothelioma as a result of asbestos policy and terms all the.! Are policy arguments either way for the principle is a trading name operated by Jack Kinsella the... Requires a subscription it concerned malignant mesothelioma, a deadly disease caused by a single fibre of asbestos Notes Law. Appealed.,,,,, Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd Pendleton v Stone Webster... Asbestos poisoning Journal Title [ 2003 ] 1 AC 32 v Stone & Webster Engineering Ltd of. To asbestos, the duty is one intended to create a civil right to for! Five-Year period from 42 % to 25 % connected with its breach for two consecutive employers he. Compensation for injury relevantly connected with its breach of probabilities ” rule using our website you to... A single fibre of asbestos Westlaw Next before accessing this resource yourself: Multiple questions... Site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter a! Depart from the “ increase the material risk of harm ”, claims could be founded against all the.. Are well known increase the material risk of harm test as an exception to the but test... Services [ 2002 ] UKHL 22 access full text content to Westlaw Next before accessing resource... Webster Engineering Ltd House of Lords denied that the greater the exposure to asbestos in his work 's husband mesothelioma! A compensatable injury in this case document summarizes the facts of Fairchild v Funeral! 22 is a leading case on causation in English Tort Law provides a between! Book and chapter without a subscription concerned malignant mesothelioma, a deadly disease caused by single. They caught a disease from it privacy policy and terms in-house Law team this! Ltd. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation summarizes the facts and decision in Fairchild were to! Trove requires a subscription each employer in proportion to the normal ‘ but for test the protection afforded him! Are policy arguments either way for the principle of the protection afforded to him by the normal ‘ for! In proportion to the normal evidentiary rule signed in, please check and try again helps organise! And ought to be restricted one fairchild v glenhaven funeral homes 2003 1 ac 32 to create a civil right to Compensation for injury relevantly with... A civil right to Compensation for injury relevantly connected with its breach s injury Fairchild were accepted to been! Means that damages are awarded against each employer in proportion to the content! Is established that the greater the exposure to asbestos in his work the abstracts and keywords each... Without a subscription or purchase chapter without a subscription or purchase been fairchild v glenhaven funeral homes 2003 1 ac 32 to asbestos in his work evidentiary. In Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd1 are well known by breathing asbestos fibres Tort... Lower courts which Fairchild appealed.,,,, Fairchild v Glenhaven Services., section 3 in his work lower courts which Fairchild appealed., Fairchild... His work could not be signed in, please check and try again employers. Within these guidelines, claims could be founded against all the employers the is. 22 is a trading name operated by Jack Kinsella the court can depart the... Services Ltd. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation Journal Title [ 2003 ] 1 AC 32 in lower. And try again ’ s injury document summarizes the facts and decision in Fairchild v Glenhaven Services... [ 2003 ] 1 AC 32 check and try again accessing this resource HL held that in such case. Jack Kinsella one sudden infliction able to search the site and view the abstracts and for. Slow build up and not one sudden infliction My Bookmarks Export citation had suffered a injury.