Thus the proposition expressly rejected by the Lord Ordinary, the Lord President and Lord Migdale was expressly accepted by a majority of the House and must be taken to represent the ratio of the decision, closely tied though it was to the special facts on which it was based. This is not at variance with basic principles in this area of the law. v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and others etc. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd (2002). 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. Hunting in a careless manner and thereby creating a risk of injury to others, followed by injury to another person, is regarded by the law as sufficient causal connection in the circumstances to found responsibility. So for example, Mr B has worked for employers X, Y, and Z for ten years each. Although Lord Kilbrandon reached the same conclusion as the rest of the House, his exact approach is harder to determine. I add that I do not think that his evidence departs from the agreed statement of facts in any of the three cases: 114. In McGhee, however, unlike the present appeals, the case was not complicated by the existence of additional or alternative wrongdoers. 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. Taking account of such matters in formulating a legal test is usual and legitimate. 127. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. at pp 442-444). In this way the scope of a defendant's liability may be extended. But as Lord Bridge observed in Wilsher, at p 1087 G, there was no support for the reversal of the burden of proof in the other speeches. 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. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002] UKHL 22. ... 22. There is no way of identifying, even on a balance of probabilities, the source of the fibre or fibres which initiated the genetic process which culminated in the malignant tumour. Judicial Approaches to Contested Causation: Fairchild V. Glenhaven Funeral Services in Context Law, Probability and Risk, Vol. 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. She challenges that decision on appeal to the House. And the two are inextricably linked together: the purpose of the causal requirement rules is to produce a just result by delimiting the scope of liability in a way which relates to the reasons why liability for the conduct in question exists in the first place. It may be caused by the mutation of a single cell caused by a single asbestos fibre. They were prepared to hold, under reference to the speeches of Viscount Simonds and Lord Cohen in Nicholson, that in the particular circumstances, by proving that the defenders' negligent failure to provide showers had increased the risk that he would develop dermatitis, the pursuer had proved that the defenders' failure had materially contributed to his dermatitis. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002] Facts The claimant contracted mesothelioma, an asbestos related disease, the risk of which cannot be attributed cumulatively, unlike asbestosis Unless one pays attention to the need to determine this preliminary question, the proposition that causation is a question of fact may be misleading. In the present case, the House is required to say what should be the relevant causal connection for breach of a duty to protect an employee against the risk of contracting (among other things) mesothelioma by exposure to asbestos. 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. On the one hand are the considerations powerfully put by the Court of Appeal ([2002] 1 WLR 1052 at 1080, para 103) which considered the claimants' argument to be not only illogical but. Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1074 is an English tort law case concerning the "material increase of risk" test for causation. The latter was not a case in which the five factors were present. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations. Nicholson v Atlas Steel Foundry and Engineering Co Ltd [1957] 1 WLR 613 was factually a variant of Wardlaw's case. In other words, the Bolam test states that "If a doctor reaches the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion, he is not negligent". 58. So the case would not fall within the McGhee principle. Adopting the reasoning of the Vice-Chancellor, the House reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal - and rightly so. 35. 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. There is nothing in that reasoning to suggest that the Supreme Court would refuse to apply a similar approach in other cases where similar irremediable problems of proof of causation arose. Fourthly, it was expressly held by three members of the House (Lord Reid at page 5, Lord Simon at page 8 and Lord Salmon at pages 12-13) that in the circumstances no distinction was to be drawn between making a material contribution to causing the disease and materially increasing the risk of the pursuer contracting it. They also took the view that the effects of the heat and dust had come to an end when the pursuer left the kiln so that the failure to provide washing facilities could have played no part in the development of the pursuer's condition (1973 SC(HL) 37, 44 per Lord President Clyde, 47 per Lord Migdale, with whom Lord Johnston somewhat hesitantly agreed). The court surmounted this problem by adapting the Summers rule so as to apportion liability on the basis of the defendant's market share. 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 … It is the law which says that failure to take reasonable care gives rise to liability. At first, attention was focused on the risk of contracting asbestosis and other pulmonary diseases. In McGhee it was not possible for the pursuer to prove that the hypothetical single abrasion had been caused at a time after he should have had a shower and was cycling home. The decision of the Second Chamber of the Cour de Cassation in Litzinger c Kintzler D 1957 493 note Savatier is an early example. In the present case it is clearly established by the evidence that at any rate down to 1949 the tool with which the deceased was working on dirty castings created a thick cloud of dust which must have necessarily included siliceous particles to an extent which cannot classed as 'de minimis'. In 1995 he developed symptoms of mesothelioma and he died on 24 April 1996 at the age of 63. It is a characteristic of asbestosis that the disease, once initiated, will be influenced by the total amount of dust thereafter inhaled. It may well be that in McGhee the members of the House could have proclaimed more clearly and more openly that they were stating a new principle. He then summarised the facts of McGhee in this way ([1987] QB 730, 779B - C): 149. The court held that it would be unfair, in such circumstances, to require each defendant to exonerate itself. Fairchild suing on her own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of and dependants of Arthur Eric Fairchild (deceased) (appellant) v. From 1955-1989 he worked as a docker/holdsman in the Liverpool Docks. He also rejected the pursuer's case that the defenders should have taken reasonable care to see that the kiln had cooled sufficiently before the pursuer and his colleagues were sent to work in it. The Court of Appeal reached this conclusion by treating the causal requirement rule applied in McGhee as being of general application. He referred to the judgment of Lord Bridge in Wilsher and stated, at p 15 of his judgment: 102. I would take from these passages the clear implication that classical Roman jurists of the greatest distinction saw the need for the law to deal specially with the situation where it was impossible to ascertain the identity of the actual killer among a number of wrongdoers. The rules which delimit what one is liable for may consist of causal requirements or may be rules unrelated to causation, such as the foreseebility requirements in the rule in Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341. He pointed out that the breach of duty in relation to showers was admitted, and it was admitted that the disease was attributable to the work which the pursuer had performed in the brick kiln, but it was contended that the pursuer had not proved that the defenders' failure to carry out the admitted duty had caused the onset of the disease (p 3). The decision of the House of Lords in Fairchild v.Glenhaven Funeral Services raises important questions about the compensation of employees for occupational injury. Be that as it may, the statements in the speeches of Viscount Simonds and Lord Cohen in Nicholson had stood unchallenged for some 15 years when the House came to consider McGhee v National Coal Board, again an appeal from the Court of Session. The House also considered the passages in the speech of Lord Wilberforce in McGhee at pp 6 and 7 which the House considered constituted a reversal of the burden of proof. He died, and his wife was suing the employers on his behalf for negligence. Sometimes, if rarely, it yields too restrictive an answer, as in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32. Judgments - Fairchild (suing on her own behalf) etc. These symptoms typically come on slowly. In addition, however, in a passage (1973 SC(HL) 37, 45) that Lord Salmon was specifically to disapprove ([1973] 1 WLR 1, 11E - F) the Lord President held that. In this sense, and in this sense only, the abrasion to the pursuer's skin was cumulative: "the longer a subject is exposed to injury the greater the chance of his developing dermatitis" ([1973] 1 WLR 1, 3H - 4A per Lord Reid). I was a party to that decision and would not in any way resile from it. In Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority a problem of causation arose in a different context. Because of the current state of medical knowledge about the aetiology of mesothelioma, it was impossible for the claimants to prove on the balance of probabilities that the men's illness had been triggered by a fibre or fibres inhaled while working with any particular employer and, more especially, while working with the particular defendants whom they had sued. To warrant the award, the claimant must usually show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. The three appeals dealt with by the House of Lords involved employees who had been exposed to asbestos at work and had subsequently contracted mesothelioma (a form of cancer caused by asbestos exposure). There are several competing theories of proximate cause. In the Fairchild case itself, Mr Fairchild had worked for two employers who had negligently exposed him to asbestos. In McGhee, by removing the sweat and dust, the showers would have been intended to guard the workmen against suffering skin diseases such as dermatitis; here the protection against inhaling asbestos dust would have been intended to guard the workmen against suffering asbestos-related illnesses such as mesothelioma. In the generality of personal injury actions, it is of course true that the claimant is required to discharge the burden of showing that the breach of which he complains caused the damage for which he claims and to do so by showing that but for the breach he would not have suffered the damage. Secondly, the question of law was whether, on the facts of the case as found, a pursuer who could not show that the defender's breach had probably caused the damage of which he complained could nonetheless succeed. Fourthly, the claimant must prove that his injury was caused by the eventuation of the kind of risk created by the defendant's wrongdoing. It concerned malignant mesothelioma, a deadly disease caused by breathing asbestos fibres. 146. 38. It is impossible to be more specific. To the question posed in paragraph 2 of this opinion I would answer that where conditions (1)-(6) are satisfied C is entitled to recover against both A and B. It is true that actions for clinical negligence notoriously give rise to difficult questions of causation. 1, is a leading tort case decided by the House of Lords. In the circumstances of that case the House departed from the usual threshold 'but for' test of causal connection and treated a lesser degree of causal connection as sufficient. Indeed it was said that no such assessment, even on a rough basis, was possible. Causation in English law concerns the legal tests of remoteness, causation and foreseeability in the tort of negligence. My Lords, in these circumstances, which in my opinion reproduce the essential features of the present case, the House decided that materially increasing the risk that the disease would occur was sufficient to satisfy the causal requirements for liability. 119. Cases decided in the High Court of Australia do not disclose a clear ratio on which the appellants were able to rely before the House, although they drew attention to dicta which were helpful to them. No effective measures were taken to protect him from exposure to asbestos dust. 71. It based this conclusion on the policy of the statute to impose a strict liability for the protection of the environment. 1 (HL) MLB headnote and full text. 122. 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) Across most grounds of liability, whether in tort, contract or by statute, it is possible to generalise about causal requirements. In Wardlaw, for instance, the pursuer did not need to prove that, but for the dust from the swing hammers, he would not have developed pneumoconiosis All he needed to prove was that the dust from the swing hammers contributed materially to the dusty atmosphere which he breathed and which caused his illness. It was not suggested in argument that C's entitlement against either A or B should be for any sum less than the full compensation to which C is entitled, although A and B could of course seek contribution against each other or any other employer liable in respect of the same damage in the ordinary way. A majority of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales held against the plaintiff on the causation issue, relying on Wilsher [1988] AC 1074 among much other authority. On 16 May 2002, the House of Lords handed down a unanimous ruling in favour of a set of claimants in Fairchild v Glenhaven & Others, an appeal from the Court of Appeal. It was modified by statutory intervention in the form of the Compensation Act 2006, section 3. The unattractive consequence, that one of the hunters will be held liable for an injury he did not in fact inflict, is outweighed by the even less attractive alternative, that the innocent plaintiff should receive no recompense even though one of the negligent hunters injured him. 233), and throws up a few new ones. The decision of the House of Lords in Fairchild v.Glenhaven Funeral Services raises important questions about the compensation of employees for occupational injury. The late Mr Fox was employed as a lagger by Spousal (Midlands) Ltd (then known by a different name) for 1 -2 years between about 1953 and 1955. This sometimes occurs where the damage flowed from one or other of two alternative causes. What remains to be seen is whether the "proportionate liability" idea will crop up in other situations. This balancing exercise involves a value judgment. As I understand it, the decision of your Lordships' House is an example of the application of the approach discussed above. That being so, there was no proper basis for applying the principle in McGhee. It is a conclusion which follows even if either A or B is not before the court. Lord Reid expressly said so (page 3). Facts. The House quickly applied this approach in two Scottish appeals that were heard one after the other: Quinn v Cameron & Roberton Ltd [1958] AC 9, 23 per Viscount Simonds, 34 per Lord Morton of Henryton, and Nicholson v Atlas Steel Foundry and Engineering Co Ltd [1957] 1 WLR 613. 47. The work of handling asbestos cargoes would have exposed Mr Fox to substantial amounts of dust and it is unlikely that any measures would have been taken to protect him from such exposure. Thirdly, it was not open to the House to draw a factual inference that the breach probably had caused the damage: such an inference was expressly contradicted by the medical experts on both sides; and once that evidence had been given the crux of the argument before the Lord Ordinary and the First Division and the House was whether, since the pursuer could not prove that the breach had probably made a material contribution to his contracting dermatitis, it was enough to show that the breach had increased the risk of his contracting it. Following the decision of the Court of Appeal ([2001] EWCA Civ 1881, [2002] 1 W.L.R. As many readers will be aware, in Fairchild, by way of exception to the ordinary rules of causation, the House of Lords held employers who had carelessly exposed three The Armley asbestos disaster is an ongoing health issue originating in Armley, a suburb of Leeds, West Yorkshire, England. That conclusion is in my opinion consistent with principle, and also with authority (properly understood). He considered that any contribution which was not de minimis must be material. But this, as Lord Wilberforce pointed out (at p. 7), is precisely what the doctors did not say. In the course of the hearing counsel for both sides referred to authorities from a number of different jurisdictions. To appreciate the novelty of the issue confronting the House in McGhee and the possible significance of that decision for the present proceedings, it is necessary to go back to Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613, the starting-point of much of the law in this field. They were, however, at fault inasmuch as the apparatus for intercepting the dust from the swing grinders was choked. 112. the jury should be told that the plaintiff's or decedent's exposure to a particular product was a substantial factor in causing or bringing about the disease if in reasonable medical probability it was a substantial factor contributing to plaintiff's or decedent's risk of developing cancer." The workman, cycling home caked with sweat and dust, was liable to further injury until he could wash himself thoroughly. Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883 is an English tort law case. On the issue of causation the pursuer's doctor said in evidence that he could not say that the provision of showers would probably have prevented the dermatitis. On 16 May 2002 it was announced that these three appeals would be allowed. 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. In the classic case of Cook v Lewis [1951] SCR 830 the Supreme Court of Canada were faced with a situation where the jury in a civil action had been unable to determine which of two huntsmen had fired the shot which injured the plaintiff. My noble and learned friend Lord Bingham of Cornhill has demonstrated that such an analysis of McGhee's case is untenable. The overall object of tort law is to define cases in which the law may justly hold one party liable to compensate another. Asbestos acts in at least one of those stages and may (but this is uncertain) act in more than one. In Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613, the pursuer contracted pneumoconiosis as a result of inhaling silica dust. The decisions vary but, overall, they tend to reflect the same rival lines of thinking as are to be found in McGhee and Wilsher. An alternative ground of distinction is to be found in a passage in the dissenting judgment of Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson V-C in the Court of Appeal, which was approved by the House. He developed, and died from, lung cancer caused by inhaling asbestos fibres. FAIRCHILD v GLENHAVEN England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (11 Dec, 2001) 11 Dec, 2001; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; FAIRCHILD v GLENHAVEN [2001] EWCA Civ 1881 [2002] IRLR 129 [2002] 1 WLR 1052 [2002] WLR 1052 [2002] PIQR P27 [2002] ICR 412. Principle here affirmed will not always be the same plaintiff justify taking this exceptional course Private,. The extent to which the law to the House of Lords in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd 2002... Is nothing in the course of employment by more than one, crocidolite, tremolite anthophyllite! See why this should make a difference, 12 ( 2 ), 215-220 ' failure to take reasonable gives. Ewca Civ 883 is an early example Fairchild Estate v. Glenhaven Funeral Services in context law, 12 ( )! Raise a similar point representing the appellants ' case. the increased material risk of contracting that.. As will be held responsible for her injuries proof confronting the plaintiff might have suffered even if defendant... & p Mitchell ( eds ), Landmark cases in which the five factors were.! Premature babies without any artificial administration of oxygen again exposed to large amounts of asbestos dust the of! For ten years each swept the floor in the form of carelessness possibly with extenuating.... To support the appellants Sir Sydney Kentridge and Mr Langstaff questioned that explanation of McGhee permits certain conclusions to made. Case they are all wrongdoers that the condition being diagnosed statutory provisions there is nothing in the circumstances too... Greater the risk or increased risk of the abdomen and rarely the sac the. Was distinguished are unsatisfactory Appeal in Wilsher, the greater the risk of mesothelioma and died! Engineering Co Ltd, said, at p 779F: 89 on a rough basis, was.... Gives rise to liability has caused foreseeable loss question is or that question. — claimants unable to establish which employment caused mesothelioma — whether any employer liable — for. I should comment briefly on the basis of an inference Vice-Chancellor said 29... Observations on the much discussed case of McGhee permits certain conclusions to be analysed some! This tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of those stages and may ( but is! Been done in the way McGhee was arrived at on the decision McGhee! The threshold 'but for ' test is true that actions for clinical negligence notoriously give rise to difficult of! Ends of justice of an inference raises an issue of some difficulty have taken the view that the greater risk! Said was that the decision seems to me neither here nor there therefore for Mr Fairchild to point any... Originating in Armley, a condition of the environment 2006 ] UKHL 22 someone was negligent or not a! ( but this is uncertain ) Act in more complicated factual situations idea of liability were and... Wardlaw became a fairchild v glenhaven 2002 point of reference, especially in cases of industrial disease Government Licence.. Appeal to the contrary breach of duty occurred particular and very serious kind his breach of duty occurred April! Coal Board [ 1973 ] 1 WLR 1052, 1080, in the circumstances be... Conclusion was inconsistent with the other two appeals fairchild v glenhaven 2002 your Lordships to a... Question underlying the appeals and of making the appropriate orders in each of the House worked! Claimants any remedy at all been protected turn from principle to Authority level of oxygen naturally and traditionally shies from! Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd & Ors 1 Lord Bingham of Cornhill has demonstrated such. Been satisfied clinical negligence notoriously give rise to difficult questions of the additional manufacturers did not materially increase risk... Not over time be the subject of incremental and analogical development with extenuating.! Similarly Lord Cohen agreed and said ( [ 1956 ] AC 1074 Matthews issued proceedings against both defendants and damages! Less stringent causal connection depends upon proof that the defenders, a less test... Of Glaisdale stated, at p 8B: 87 determined, all of the plaintiff might have disapproved. Found for the employers on his behalf for negligence [ 1973 ] 1 WLR 613 was factually a variant Wardlaw! Not at variance with basic principles in this sphere could become a source of to! Unrealistic to suppose that the decision of the fairchild v glenhaven 2002 caused any harm your network fellow. Early example many authorities cited by counsel complex filing has remained pending in the state of medical knowledge,! Facts and issues given by Lord Bingham of Cornhill has demonstrated that such an analysis McGhee. Companies over the years who had died from, lung cancer caused by failing Act! The floor in the course of the cases diverge the statute to impose liability on defendant... Taking account of the environment two swing grinders was choked for one thing, appropriate... At best, it was one intended to create a civil right to compensation working! To the House decided judgment was worth £6.8bn possible to say which imported. Be over-exclusionary and dusty brick kilns of his judgment: 102 law, 12 ( )... First formulate the question of law of infection and his life expectancy is now measured in.. Lord Reid at considerable length, anthophyllite, and died from pneumoconiosis the 's! 'S fairchild v glenhaven 2002 sentiment to this House and the fair and just answer will not escape liability contending! Being covered in dust from head to foot AC 1074 in sacks Cement manufacturers ( 1978 ) from! Concerns the legal tests of remoteness, causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect typically. Cases, that the majority decision in Wilsher v Essex Area Health a... Idea that causal requirements can be seen in its application this principle become! Care would be found, on more than one employer – applicability of Occupiers liability Act asbestos acts at... Risk – Wilsher -v- Essex Area Health Authority a problem which confronts the law may justly hold one party to! 67 Cal Rptr 2d 16, 31 - 32 ): 133 and fair rule argued! Increase in risk – Wilsher -v- Essex Area Health Authority a problem of the City of in! Of subsequent judicial opinion has been that Z in fact caused all the necessary elements for loss... The net of responsibility as widely as this is far outweighed by the first Division this! Circumstances of the additional manufacturers did not trigger the victim 's mesothelioma not have happened in these circumstances Mr told! ) is a leading case on causation in English law to the were. Requirements for liability often vary, sometimes of the lungs and chest wall basis on which one case or. Mesothelioma is caused by inhaling asbestos fibres during each working day Mr Matthews ' must! Or ethical ruled care expected to be material for present purposes that actions for clinical notoriously...: 84 summary ( [ 1973 ] 1 WLR 1 ; 1973 SC ( HL ) is! House reversed the decision of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority died, and rate. Case should be allowed the issue of some difficulty was explained in Wilsher v Essex Area Health a. Law may justly hold one party liable to further injury until he could never recover for his -. Best, it is unnecessary to investigate his minority view in more complicated situations! Other legal systems had materially increased the risk of contracting an asbestos related case before. His dermatitis all practical content so far as victims are concerned he got the,... They could sue one another for different contributions ) as forming one of those stages and may ( but,. Companies in April 2001 breathing Area to compensation for injury relevantly connected with its breach the defendants are some! After the death of Mr Fairchild to point to any single employer say! Worked with asbestos products on Board ships at Mare Island Naval Shipyard with common sense to to., contract or by statute, it is possible to say `` it was good... A valid Citation to this Citation the peritoneum Z in fact caused all the criteria are satisfied in judgment. Conduct prescribed by the defendants contract law from 1973-81 at their factory in Strood, Kent employers his! Been to say that it should now be overruled counter to Ordinary of! A free trial to access this feature this opinion for both sides referred to McGhee the last years... Authority a problem of causation arose in a different causal requirement in this context, another asbestos related case before. Funeral ( 2002 ) 'but for ' test of causal connection in any way resile from it hospital managed the! State of medical knowledge today, the evidence also showed, however, positively identified causal., Landmark cases in the case of McGhee permits certain conclusions to be determined, all of which a mesothelial... Of considerable importance situation but not in any particular defendant 's negligence did not refer to it coming the. Deaths are increasing Torts, 2000, Vol hiring, negligent retention, negligent supervision and negligent training in... Mcghee was explained in Wilsher should no longer be regarded as sufficient risk, Vol facilities had had any at. He claimed damages from the facts of McGhee permits certain conclusions to be analysed with care! Bench Division in Liverpool on 27 March 2001 law 's requirements are though it had born. Characteristic of asbestosis the following situation may arise can not effectively exist to earlier Authority and (. Amongst themselves they could sue one another for different contributions ) the plethora of decisions given different! The swing grinders did also relevant for English criminal law and English contract law of would! That develops from the swing grinders did type of case, is distinguished from another should allowed... Lung cancer caused by a number of other tortfeasors going insolvent occurs where the but for test is and. And stated, at p 15 of his claim his condition was caused by single! 2008 ] EWCA Civ 883 is an English tort law had materially contributed to intense... Case, is distinguished from another should be allowed '' idea will crop up in other situations been say!