Facts
- The case consolidated three appeals involving claimants who developed mesothelioma, a cancer primarily caused by asbestos exposure.
- Each claimant had worked for several employers, each of whom negligently exposed them to asbestos at different times.
- Scientific uncertainty existed as to whether mesothelioma was caused by a single fiber or cumulative exposures, making it impossible to determine which employer's breach caused the harm.
- The Court of Appeal rejected the claims due to a failure to satisfy the "but for" test of causation, leaving claimants without remedy.
- The legal challenge was whether a claimant who worked for multiple negligent employers and developed mesothelioma could recover damages despite not being able to identify the specific causative exposure.
Issues
- Whether a claimant who could not prove, on the balance of probabilities, which exposure caused mesothelioma could nonetheless recover damages from any negligent employer.
- Whether a departure from the "but for" causation test was justified where scientific uncertainties prevented identification of the exact causative event.
- Whether a defendant who materially increased the risk of harm should be liable for the claimant’s injury.
Decision
- The House of Lords overturned the Court of Appeal, holding that the employers were liable in negligence.
- Established the "Fairchild exception," allowing liability where a defendant’s breach of duty materially increased the risk of harm, even if causation could not be proved in the traditional sense.
- Recognized that strict application of the "but for" test would result in injustice and deny compensation to claimants harmed by multiple negligent exposures.
- The exception is limited to certain cases where claimants are unable to prove which exposure caused the injury due to scientific uncertainty.
Legal Principles
- The traditional "but for" test of causation requires the claimant to prove that the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant’s negligence.
- In exceptional circumstances—such as multiple negligent exposures leading to mesothelioma—the law recognizes a "material increase in risk" test.
- Liability attaches if a defendant's conduct significantly increased the risk of the relevant harm, even without definitive proof of causation.
- This exception is rooted in principles of fairness and the policy goal of providing compensation where strict causation proof is unattainable.
- The "material increase in risk" principle is not universally applicable and remains limited to situations with scientific uncertainty and disease like mesothelioma.
- Damages may be apportioned according to the degree of risk increase attributed to each defendant, as clarified in subsequent case law.
Conclusion
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd marked a significant evolution in causation doctrine, establishing a limited exception to the "but for" test and enabling claimants who suffered mesothelioma after negligent asbestos exposure by multiple employers to obtain redress; this principle is confined to cases with analogous scientific uncertainties and multiple exposures.
