Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22

House of Lords

Basic Facts:
Several claimants (Cs) were exposed to asbestos by different employers over time. Despite varied exposure times, scientific evidence indicated that even brief exposure could cause asbestos-related diseases. There was no dispute that asbestos likely caused the diseases, but the challenge was identifying which employer was responsible.

Issue for the Court:
When a specific defendant (D) cannot be identified as the cause of injury, but multiple Ds are potentially responsible, whom can the claimant (C) seek damages from?

Held: The employers were liable in negligence; Cs should be entitled to sue all employers that exposed them to asbestos for full compensation

Lord Bingham (Allowing the Appeal, 4:1 Majority on Causation Test):

• Generally, causation requires the "but for" test. The issue here was whether a special rule should apply in certain cases.

• The case of McGhee established that those who materially increase the risk of harm should be treated as having contributed to the harm in the absence of other evidence.

• The principle was that if a wrongful act or omission increases the risk of injury, and that risk materializes, the wrongdoer should be held liable, even if other factors also contributed.

• On policy grounds, it would be unjust to deny claimants recourse when wrongdoing by a set of defendants is clear, but medical evidence does not allow pinpointing a single defendant.