The claimant sought damages from his employers for causing him bladder cancer. It is known that bladder cancer is caused by exposure to amines and the claimant had been so exposed from two sources. One was his employment, which wrongfully exposed him to amines used in the manufacture of dyes. The other was smoking, for cigarette smoke contains amines. Expert evidence established that the occupational exposure had more than doubled the risk caused by smoking. There was an issue as to whether Bonnington applied or whether the claimant had to prove that ‘but for’ the occupational exposure he would not have suffered the cancer.
Held: Smith LJ did not find it necessary to resolve this issue, holding that the ‘but for’ test was satisfied: ‘In terms of risk, if occupational exposure more than doubles the risk due to smoking, it must, as a matter of logic, be probable that the disease was caused by the former.’
Judges:
Smith LJ
Citations:
[2007] EWCA Civ 1261
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd; Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Willmore SC 9-Mar-2011
The Court considered appeals where defendants challenged the factual basis of findings that they had contributed to the causes of the claimant’s Mesothelioma, and in particular to what extent a court can satisfactorily base conclusions of fact on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.261610
