A Brief Note On Causation And Remoteness Within The Common Law Tort Of Negligence

2654 Words11 Pages
ASSESSMENT A: Problem Question Introduction I will advise each subsequent claimant with regards to any actions they might have when focusing on issues of causation and remoteness within the common law tort of negligence. Chico’s case Issue Whether employers X, Y and Z are liable in negligence for Chico’s injury because they exposed him to asbestos. Relevant Law Causation Fairchild Barker Compensation Act 2006 s.3 Application In most cases the ‘but for’ test is the method used for establishing factual causation. ‘But for’ the defendant 's wrongdoing, the claimant would not have suffered damage. However, causation becomes problematic when more than one cause arises, since the onus is upon the claimant to establish which party caused their injury or loss. The material elements test is crucial to cases relating to mesothelioma. A claimant suffering injury must demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the defendant 's tort caused the injury or loss. The claimant must then demonstrate that there is more than a fifty percent likelihood of the cause being the breach of duty of the defendant. If there are multiple causes then the burden of proof is impossible to discharge. This has often left claimants uncompensated for an obvious breach of duty. In Fairchild the House of Lords recognised that in situations wherein the claimant had been exposed to asbestos at different times whilst working for different employers, it was impossible to satisfy the conventional ‘but for’

More about A Brief Note On Causation And Remoteness Within The Common Law Tort Of Negligence

Get Access