header-logo header-logo

16 June 2011 / Kenneth Warner
Issue: 7470 / Categories: Features , Health & safety , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

The blame game

Kenneth Warner examines causation & industrial disease

It is a basic principle of the law of torts that a defendant will be liable only for the harm that the defendant has caused. In cases of doubt it is incumbent on the plaintiff to show, on the civil standard of proof, that the tortious conduct of the defendant caused the injury that is complained of. In effect, evidence that the tort is the most likely cause of the harm will suffice to discharge the burden, but in principle anything short of that should result in a rejection of the plaintiff’s claim. This rule can cause great difficulties for a plaintiff, where there exist multiple possible causes in fact for the ultimate harm suffered. They may be multiple “guilty” causes; as where the claimant has been exposed to toxic agents with a number of different employers, each independently capable of producing the same disease. Again they may be “guilty” but separate causes which are capable of working cumulatively to bring about the plaintiff’s ultimate harm, as with asbestosis, where the severity of the harm will relate

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll