The case of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32 is one of the most significant decisions in the field of tort law, particularly concerning issues of causation in claims for asbestos-related diseases. The ruling introduced a departure from the traditional “but for” test of causation, providing a new framework for determining liability in cases where the claimant’s injury or disease results from multiple exposures to harmful substances, making it difficult to pinpoint the exact cause.
The decision has had a profound impact on tort law, particularly in relation to claims involving occupational diseases such as mesothelioma. This case brief provides a detailed analysis of the facts, issues, judgement, and legal principles involved in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd.
Facts of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd
The plaintiffs in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd were a group of workers who had developed mesothelioma, a type of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos dust. Each of the claimants had been exposed to asbestos during their employment with different employers over a period of time.
Importantly, mesothelioma is a disease with a long latency period, meaning that it can take decades for symptoms to develop after the initial exposure. Furthermore, mesothelioma can be caused by cumulative exposure to asbestos, and a single exposure to the substance can be sufficient to cause the disease.
The central issue in this case arose because the claimants could not determine which specific employer’s exposure had caused their mesothelioma. All the employers involved admitted that they had breached their duty of care by exposing their employees to asbestos, but no single employer could be identified as the direct cause of the claimants’ disease.
Under traditional tort law, the “but for” test of causation is applied: this test establishes that a defendant is liable for harm caused if the harm would not have occurred “but for” their actions. However, in this case, the “but for” test was problematic because it was impossible to identify which specific employer’s actions had caused the mesothelioma. Therefore, the court had to consider whether the “but for” test could be applied in these circumstances, or whether a new approach was necessary.
Legal Issue
The central legal issue in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd was whether it was possible to apply the “but for” test of causation in a case where the claimants had been exposed to asbestos by multiple employers, and it was impossible to determine which employer’s exposure had actually caused the disease.
This raised a critical question of whether, in such a situation, a defendant could still be held liable for the claimant’s disease if their actions had materially increased the risk of harm, even if their exposure alone might not have been sufficient to cause the disease.
The issue presented in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd was complex because mesothelioma is a disease that can be caused by cumulative exposure to asbestos, and even a single exposure could potentially be enough to trigger the disease.
The difficulty lay in proving which exposure had been the cause of the disease, given the extended latency period and the multiple sources of exposure.
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd Judgement
The House of Lords, in a landmark decision, ruled in favour of the claimants, adopting the “material increase of risk” test for causation. The judgement was delivered by Lord Bingham, Lord Nicholls, Lord Hoffman, and Lord Rodger.
The House of Lords acknowledged that the traditional “but for” test could not be reasonably applied in this case due to the unique nature of mesothelioma and the difficulties in establishing causation in the context of multiple exposures to asbestos.
Lord Bingham, in his judgement, expressed concern that to deny the claimants a remedy based on the inability to apply the “but for” test would be unjust. The court recognised that the claimants had been exposed to asbestos as a result of the negligence of their employers, and it would have been wrong to leave them without any legal recourse simply because it was impossible to pinpoint which exposure was the exact cause of their disease.
Instead of applying the “but for” test, the House of Lords held that a defendant could be held liable if their actions materially increased the risk of harm to the claimant. In other words, even if the employer’s exposure to asbestos could not be definitively linked to the cause of the mesothelioma, if their actions had increased the claimant’s risk of contracting the disease, they could be held liable for the harm caused.
The House of Lords made it clear that the “material increase of risk” test was an exception to the “but for” test. This approach allowed the court to acknowledge the complexities of asbestos-related diseases and the difficulties in determining causation in such cases, while still ensuring that the claimants had a means of seeking compensation for the harm they had suffered.
The decision also allowed for the possibility of employers who were found to be liable to claim joint contributions from other employers who had also exposed the claimants to asbestos. This principle of joint liability allowed for a fairer distribution of the financial responsibility for the harm caused by asbestos exposure.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32 is a landmark case in the field of tort law that fundamentally altered the approach to causation in cases involving multiple exposures to asbestos. The decision marked a departure from the traditional “but for” test, adopting the “material increase of risk” test to ensure that claimants who had been exposed to asbestos by multiple employers could still seek compensation for their injuries.
The case represents a significant development in the law, ensuring that individuals suffering from mesothelioma are not left without a remedy due to the complexities of proving causation in cases involving cumulative exposure. By recognising the limitations of the “but for” test and introducing a more flexible approach to causation, Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd has paved the way for a fairer and more just approach to asbestos-related disease claims.
