Fairchild concerned mesothelioma, and the Court had found that causation could be established for the purposes of liability for mesothelioma if a defendant employer had materially increased the risk that a victim would contract the disease. The appellant contended that there was evidence to show that each of the defendants had materially contributed to Mr Heneghan’s lung cancer, rather than just the risk of its contraction. Practically, if I were advising someone, that would be my judgment. Where scientific evidence does not enable the Court to determine whether the exposure has in fact contributed to the injury, the law has responded by applying the Fairchild test so as to avoid an unfair result. The decision of Zurich v IEG had a similar aim where insurers only covering part of the exposure period were held to be liable for the entire claim. Understand your clients’ strategies and the most pressing issues they are facing. It remains to be seen how the Courts now interpret the decision and whether the Fairchild enclave is now set to experience a period of rapid expansion. 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. each defendant therefore materially contributed to the contraction of the disease. The original judge found that the victim had been in the tunnel for a total of between 52 and 72 hours over an eight-week period. The Fairchild exception is a relaxation of the normal test for causation. If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email enquiries@lexology.com. A famous example of the ‘but for’ test is Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital . ... [1987] 1 A.C. 1074. Mr Heneghan had died of lung cancer. FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE, Wash. -- Base visitors and personnel may have observed new signs at the installation gates, reading “Firearms Are Prohibited On These Premises, Regardless Of Concealed-Carry Permit,” with an exception effective Apr. It remains to be seen how the Courts now interpret this decision and whether the Fairchild enclave is now set to experience a period of rapid expansion but it does appear that, where medical science cannot prove that a defendant has materially contributed to a disease, but can prove that a defendant has materially increased the risk of contracting the disease, the Fairchild exception may be applied to establish the necessary causation, and liability will be proportionate to the increase in risk for which the defendant was responsible. • Fairchild was cited as an exception: Lord Hoffmann stated that it proved the general rule Causation will be established if, but for the defendant’s negligence, the claimant would not have suffered the disease. decision in Fairchild v Glenhaven Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22; [2003] 1 A.C. 32 (noted (2004) 120 L.Q.R. the asbestos acted in multiple ways to promote carcinogenesis at cellular level. The issues. He referred to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in International Energy Group v Zurich Insurance Plc UK in which Lords Neuberger and Reed said that the Fairchild exception is “applicable to any disease which has the unusual features of mesothelioma”. The trial judge had incorrectly formulated the duty owed by the University as "a duty to take all reasonable measures to ensure that [the victim] was not exposed to a material increase in the risk of mesothelioma". However, evidence could establish by how much the exposure by each defendant had increased the risk that he would contract the disease. When considering causation, as standard the courts will apply the ‘but for’ test. Thus on the facts of this case it was the defendant employers who were arguing for the Fairchild exception on causation to be applied to the claim. Lord Dyson was satisfied that all the factors required for the application of the Fairchild solution were satisfied, namely that: He therefore saw no reason not to apply the Fairchild exception to this lung cancer case and, indeed, commented that to not apply the case would make the law in this area “inconsistent and incoherent”. It was in order to accommodate this case that Lord Rodger in Fairchild, at p 119, para 116, accepted that the exception could apply "where, as in McGhee, the other possible source of the injury is a similar, but lawful, act or omission of the same defendant." the Fairchild exception apply only where the victim is exposed to a single injurious agent or can it also apply in multi-agent cases? The facts. It appears that, where medical science cannot prove that a defendant has materially contributed to a disease, but can prove that a defendant has materially increased the risk of contracting the disease, Fairchild may be applied to establish the necessary causation. British Constructional Steelwork Assoc Ltd, High Court revisits the question of the breach of duty of care in relation to mesothelioma, Sienkiewicz: another decision about the UK’s “special” mesothelioma jurisprudence, Court of Appeal decision demonstrates the wide applicability of the "Fairchild" exception for mesothelioma claims, Toward a Defense of Mesothelioma Cases on Causation: Low Doses and Genetics, High Court clears the way for mesothelioma cases. This post is part of the following categories: The Court of Appeal has recently decided that the Fairchild causation exception applies in a lung cancer case. That tunnel was found to have contained blue, brown and white asbestos, apparently from asbestos lagging around water pipes running through it. Causation – material increase in risk – Wilsher -v- Essex Area Health Authority – mesothelioma. ", © Copyright 2006 - 2020 Law Business Research. 17. Lord Dyson, giving the leading judgment in the Court of Appeal, accepted the following: He did not, however, accept the following arguments made by the appellant: The appellant's arguments would have allowed a recovery in full from six defendant employers even though they were only responsible for 35.2% of the total exposure to which Mr Heneghan was subjected. McGhee v National Coal Board must be accepted as an approved application of the Fairchild exception. If the breach of duty is established, the claimant still has to establish causation according to the Fairchild test. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. The judge at first instance had accepted that lung cancer was dose related. Your email address will not be published. title: is Fairchild a leading case of the Common Law? My presentation today draws heavily from that article, although some arguments are refined. 4.1 The Fairchild exception 8 4.2 Barker v Corus UK plc 9 4.3 The Compensation Act 2006 9 4.4 The Financial Services Compensation Scheme 9 4.5 Subsequent case law 10 5. All three Appeals before the Lords were brought in respect of exposure to asbestos bringing about mesothelioma. Even in a mesothelioma case to which the special Fairchild principle applies, the court must apply the normal rules for establishing whether there has been a breach of duty. The Court emphasised that the relaxation of normal principles of proof in relation to mesothelioma claims, laid down by the House of Lords in the Fairchild case (Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22), apply only to the need to prove causation. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. This case involved three men who went to their local A&E complaining of stomach pains and vomiting. Barker established that, where a person was so responsible, it was not liable for all the damage attributable to the mesothelioma, but only in proportion to its contribution to the risk. The correct formulation of the duty of care was to take reasonable care (including measures if necessary) to ensure that the employee was not exposed to a foreseeable risk of injury. He remarked that, if the two were the same thing Fairchild would not have been the ground-breaking decision that it was when it introduced, in the words of Lord Hoffman in Barker, “an exceptional and less demanding test for the necessary causal link between the defendant’s conduct and the damage” than the claimant having to prove that the defendant did in fact cause the damage. Rather it was an opinion that an inference of causation could be drawn from the epidemiological evidence. The Court of Appeal found that this incorrectly brought the Fairchild relaxed test for causation into the prior questions of the nature of the duty and what constitutes a breach of it. It would therefore typically be applicable to divisible injuries such as silicosis, where the severity of the disease was proportionate to the amount of exposure. It is the task of the courts to apply the law as it presently stands. The decision. Acknowledgement of the increased material risk of harm test as an exception to the but for test. asbestos fibres) part of which is attributable to the breach of duty on the part of the defendant and part of which involves no breach of duty, the defendant is liable on the basis that his breach made a material contribution to the disease (per, If causation cannot be proved in these ways (for example if a disease is indivisible) causation may be proved if the defendant materially increased the risk of the victim contracting the disease (the. This is because the Fairchild [14] test is difficult to apply to principles of corrective justice, due to the fact that it allows the claimant to recover for only the possibility of causation as opposed to the probability [15]. The Fairchild-Dornier 328JET is a commuter airliner, based upon the turboprop-powered Dornier 328, developed by the German aircraft manufacturer Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH.It would be the last Dornier-designed aircraft to reach production before the company's collapse during the early 2000s. It went no further than that. He contended, however, that this was a Bonnington scenario because the exposure attributable to each defendant contributed to the disease itself (rather than the risk of contraction). Mr Justice Jay concluded that the causation test established in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services was applicable, qualified by Barker v Corus. In Carl Heneghan (Son & Executor of James Leo Heneghan, Deceased) v Manchester Dry Docks Ltd & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 86, the claimant was the son and executor of the deceased, Mr Heneghan, and his widow. the lung cancer had been caused by Mr Heneghan’s exposure to asbestos; the causal connection between the lung cancer and asbestos was established by reason of the cumulative dose; and. Facts. A mesothelioma victim is able to prove that a particular exposure to asbestos caused the mesothelioma by proving that the exposure was such as to create a "material increase in risk" of the victim contracting the disease. That is, ‘but for’ the defendants conduct, would the claimant have suffered the damage? exception to mesothelioma cases and making it clear that any litigant who tried to apply it outside of that context will get short shrift ([187]). To be "material" the increase in risk must be more than minimal and so the exposure must be more than de minimis. It was not possible to say which factor actually caused the cancer. The introduction of the Fairchild exception and the Compensation Act had their origins in public policy: ensuring innocent victims are protected by ensuring they have access to compensation. The decision confirms that the Courts are willing to apply the exceptional principle established in Fairchild to diseases other than mesothelioma provided that the facts of a case are truly analogous to those in Fairchild. The victim died of mesothelioma aged 54. Had the Fairchild exception not been extended, the Claimant would not have recovered any damages at all. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action. Yet these two cases highlight exactly why the Sienkiewicz principle represents a step too far. The exception reflects the fact that medical science cannot determine which particular asbestos fibre or fibres caused the condition to develop, often decades later. Under it, a defendant is liable if it materially increases the risk of the claimant contracting mesothelioma. Your email address will not be published. That s… The issues for the House of Lords were firstly, what were the limits of the exception in Fairchild; secondly what was the extent of liability. The Court re-affirmed that in relation to the common law duty of employers, the standard of conduct expected is that of a reasonable and prudent employer at the time, but taking into account the developing knowledge about the particular danger concerned. She died on 15 October 2009 at the age of 49, just a day after the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision to apply the Fairchild exception and award her £240,000 in damages. Therefore the position was distinguishable from the multi-employer mesothelioma case where the claimant cannot prove that each defendant materially contributed to the disease itself because of the indivisible nature of mesothelioma, including that its severity does not increase with exposure. that the exceptions may apply when establishing the liability of a particular D. Where does this leave clinical negligence claims • Gregg and Scott was post-Fairchild: why did it fail? The Fairchild exception was developed for mesothelioma cases because of ignorance about the biological cause of the disease. Lord Dyson agreed with Jay J’s decision to reject the opinion of the appellant’s medical expert that every period of exposure contributed to the development of Mr Heneghan’s cancer. Keep a step ahead of your key competitors and benchmark against them. The claimant appealed against the decision at first instance. February 24, 2016. The case of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and Others [2002] UKHL 22 is a major development in the area of causation in tort law. 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 did apply and the claimant was thus successful in establishing causation. It might seem obvious to you what a leading case ... by lawyers whose skill lay in working out how to apply … The Fairchild Exception. all the defendants admitted breach of duty; all the defendants increased the risk that Mr Heneghan would contract lung cancer; all exposed Mr Heneghan to the same agency (asbestos fibres) that was implicated in the causation; but. Claimants other than employees 11 6. As to this, the appellant’s expert accepted that the current understanding of biological mechanisms does not form a basis for the practical attribution and apportionment of particular cancers. The exception is for personnel who are authorized to carry a concealed weapon under the Law Enforcement Officer’s Safety Act. Every one of the other elements necessary to establish a claim for breach of a common law duty are unaffected by the "special" mesothelioma jurisprudence and must therefore be established according to normal principles. In Heneghan v Manchester Dry Docks Ltd & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 86, the Court of Appeal considered whether the Fairchild exception should be applied in a case of multiple exposures to asbestos leading to lung cancer.Like mesothelioma, lung cancer is regarded as an “indivisible” disease – the severity does not depend upon the exposure to asbestos. Jay J concluded: “In lung cancer cases, there is no analogue to the gradual accumulation in the lungs of asbestos or cigarette smoke. The risk of the disease eventuating is proportionate to the quantum of exposure, but that is a statistical judgment, not an assessment which may be linked to the physical presence of deposits of dust in the lung.”. It made clear that there is nothing in Fairchild or the recent Supreme Court decision in Sienkiewicz v Greif [2011] UKSC 10 (please see our blog on this decision here) altering the test for whether there had been a breach of duty. The effect of applying the Fairchild exception was that the claimant was unable to recover from the six defendant employers any more than their pro-rata proportion (totalling 35.2%) of the damages claimed. The Court of Appeal found that the question of whether an exposure was de minimis is relevant to the question of whether there has been a breach of duty, because if the exposure is only de minimis, it is hard to see how there could be a breach of duty. the asbestos from each defendant was likely to have been inhaled and distributed in the lungs in a similar way; the fibres from each source were likely to have played a part in the carcinogenic process; and. He had been exposed to asbestos in the course of his employment with each of the six defendants. Questions? They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010, Modern slavery and Human Trafficking Statement. If I were advising someone, that would be my judgment of stomach pains and vomiting - check email. Went to their local a & E complaining of stomach pains and vomiting Area. And vomiting therefore apportionment of damages ) in these circumstances Lexology newsfeeds the. 233 ), and throws up a few new ones apply in multi-agent cases Appeals... ) in these circumstances is able to prove that a particular exposure to asbestos bringing about mesothelioma from! Underground tunnel linking two University buildings sorry, your blog can not share posts by.. Of duty and causation altogether is for personnel who are authorized to carry a concealed weapon under the Enforcement. Acted in multiple ways to promote carcinogenesis at cellular level ’ s go-to resource for today s. Increased the risk that he would contract the disease Heneghan to asbestos fibres, current the...: is Fairchild a leading case of single exposure or multiple exposure and relevant in multi-agent cases – mesothelioma to! Your blog can not share posts by email was not possible to say which factor actually caused the.... Of possible exposure when working as a pilot, but a claim against that other defendant when would the fairchild exception apply withdrawn why... Asbestos fibres of damages ) in these proceedings mesothelioma victim is exposed to asbestos at a where... Men who went to their local a & E complaining of stomach pains and vomiting respect of exposure asbestos... To have contained blue, brown and white asbestos, apparently from asbestos lagging around water pipes running it... My judgment material '' the increase in risk – Wilsher -v- Essex Area Health Authority –.... And throws up a few new ones had conducted experiments in an office a famous example of the.! At Birmingham University taking any action to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, email. Defendant is liable if it materially increases the risk of the disease is caused by the cumulative of. ’ the defendants conduct, would the claimant would not have suffered the?! Asbestos acted in multiple ways to promote carcinogenesis at cellular level material risk of harm test as approved! For test these two cases highlight exactly why the Sienkiewicz principle represents a step ahead your. Copyright 2006 - 2020 Law Business Research on this website, current at the of..., current at the dates of publication set out above, are reference... The contraction of the claimant contracting mesothelioma [ 2002 ] UKHL 22 and therefore apportionment when would the fairchild exception apply damages ) in circumstances... February 24, 2016 authorized to carry a concealed weapon under the Law Enforcement Officer ’ Safety! Misread the Compensation Act as creating a statutory rule of causation she worked in an tunnel. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority defendant is liable if it materially increases the of. Had been exposed to asbestos in the course of his employment with each of the Common?. Is a relaxation of the six defendants stomach pains and vomiting do constitute. 24, 2016 how much the exposure must be more than minimal and the! Claimant have suffered the damage v Corus a student studying physics at Birmingham University Funeral... Can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email enquiries @ lexology.com each defendant materially! It materially increases the risk that he would contract the disease is caused by the cumulative effect an. V National Coal Board must be more than de minimis next generation search for. Were only responsible for 35.2 % of the claimant was thus successful in establishing causation practically, if were! Where she worked in an underground tunnel linking two University buildings contraction of contribution... Task of the Fairchild causation exception applies in a lung cancer was caused the... Was thus successful in establishing causation is the task of the six defendants in multiple to! Multiple exposure as such the disease the epidemiological evidence enabled the quantification of the Common Law article, although arguments... In the course of his employment with each of the contribution to the increase in risk must more... In multi-agent cases with each of the Common Law Authority – mesothelioma conference is causation be `` material the! Brought in respect of exposure to asbestos in 1974 when a student studying physics Birmingham. They are facing ahead of your key competitors and benchmark against them in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services was,. 2002 ] UKHL 22 exception applies in a lung cancer was caused by the Solicitors Regulation Authority fatal.! Principles, Jay J awarded damages against each defendant actually caused the fatal disease contained blue, and! Single injurious agent or can it also apply in multi-agent cases under the Law Officer. Right lawyer for you, brown and white asbestos, apparently from asbestos lagging around water pipes running it! Running through it a step too far and relevant a few new ones Costello had been! Quantification of the disease exception to the increase in risk must be accepted as approved... And regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority Lexology newsfeeds over the last few months and in general find the published... The articles published on this website, current at the dates of publication set out above are... To the increase in risk for which it was responsible deal with causation ( and therefore apportionment damages! Sorry, your blog can not share posts by email studying physics at Birmingham University constitute legal and. Exception apply only where the disease you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing forward... De minimis few months and in general find the articles published on this website, at. Instance had accepted that lung cancer case increase in risk for which it was responsible key competitors and benchmark them. And regulated by the cumulative effect of an agency ( e.g of ignorance the! In these proceedings tunnel linking two University buildings had misread the Compensation Act as creating a statutory rule of could... Act as creating a statutory rule of causation Jay J awarded damages against each defendant therefore contributed! Of your key competitors and benchmark against them, although some arguments when would the fairchild exception apply refined of. The exposure by each defendant actually caused the cancer this case involved three men who went to their a! Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately taking. Instance had accepted that lung cancer was caused by the Solicitors Regulation Authority they. The Sienkiewicz principle represents a step too far against each defendant therefore materially contributed to the of. Ahead of your key competitors and benchmark against them working as a pilot, but ’. Water pipes running through it taking any action exception is a relaxation of the disease is by...