The deceased had suffered mesothelioma. It was said to have been contracted whilst studying at the defendant University. His study involved working in a closed tunnel with asbestos lagged pipes.
Held: Aikens LJ, set out the legal approach to be adopted applying the three leading decisions He referred to Sienkiewicz and the holding by the Supreme Court that the basis of liability for mesothelioma remained a question to be decided according to the Common Law, since section 3 of the 2006 Act only dealt with the position once liability had been found. He set out the four elements that had to be established on the balance of probabilities as a result of the trilogy of decisions. The breach of the duty of care was to be shown by the claimant establishing that the defendant had negligently exposed the victim to asbestos fibres and consequent asbestos related injury that was the reasonably foreseeable result of the negligence. The causation element required that it be shown that the defendant’s negligent breach of duty caused a material increase in the risk that the victim would develop mesothelioma. The causation element applicable to ordinary tort claims was thus modified to deal with ‘the rock of uncertainty’.
Judges:
Maurice Kay VP CA, Aikens, Patten LJJ
Citations:
[2011] EWCA Civ 1242, [2012] ELR 47, [2012] PIQR P4
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Personal Injury
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.447638
