## Facts

- Mr. Holtby, the claimant, was employed as a marine fitter by several employers between 1953 and 1979, during which he was exposed to asbestos dust.
- As a result of prolonged exposure, Holtby developed asbestosis.
- Brigham Cowan (Hull) Ltd was among the claimant’s employers within this period.
- Holtby claimed that Brigham Cowan (Hull) Ltd’s failure to provide adequate protection amounted to negligence causing his illness.
- The trial judge found the defendant liable but limited responsibility to the period of their direct employment, apportioning damages accordingly.
- The claimant appealed, arguing that the defendant should be liable for all his damages, claiming it was impossible to differentiate the harm caused by each employer.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant employer can be held liable for the entirety of damages where an injury arose from exposure over time with multiple employers.
2. Whether damages for divisible injuries should be apportioned according to each defendant’s contribution to the harm.
3. Whether causation and proportionality require limiting liability to only the portion of harm attributable to each defendant.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant’s appeal, upholding the apportionment of damages.
- The court held that the claimant bears the burden of proving causation.
- Where an injury is divisible, such as asbestosis caused by cumulative exposures, damages may be apportioned to reflect the extent of each defendant’s contribution.
- The defendant’s liability was limited to the proportion of harm directly attributable to their period of employment, not for exposures during periods with other employers.
- The court rejected the argument that the defendant should be liable for the totality of damages in cases where precise apportionment is challenging.
- This approach was supported as consistent with causation and proportionality in negligence.

## Legal Principles

- In negligence claims involving multiple tortfeasors and divisible injuries, liability is limited to the extent each defendant contributed to the harm.
- The doctrine of causation requires that a defendant’s breach of duty be a material cause of the claimant’s injury.
- Proportionality requires that damages reflect the degree of contribution by each party.
- The Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 allows courts to apportion liability based on respective contributions.
- Defendants should not be held liable for harm they did not cause.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in Holtby v Brigham Cowan (Hull) Ltd clarified that in negligence cases involving divisible injuries from multiple sources, each defendant’s liability is confined to their proven contribution to the harm. This ensures damages are apportioned fairly, in accordance with causation and proportionality, without making any one employer responsible for injuries attributable to overall cumulative exposure involving multiple employers.


Holtby v Brigham Cowan (Hull) Ltd [2000] 3 All ER 421