Barker v Corus (UK) plc Murray v British Shipbuilders (Hydrodynamics) Ltd and others Patterson v Smiths Dock Ltd and others
Barker v Corus (UK) plc Murray v British Shipbuilders (Hydrodynamics) Ltd and others Patterson v Smiths Dock Ltd and others
- 2006
[2006] UKHL 20, 3 May 2006. Appeal by the employers, C, BS and SD, against a CA decision ([2004] EWCA Civ 545; [2005] 3 All ER 661) in respect of their liability for damages for exposing B, M and P to asbestos dust. B had had three exposures to asbestos, the second of which was as a result of a breach of duty by C, although the third had arisen when B was self-employed. P had been exposed to asbestos by four employers, for different lengths of time. M had also been exposed to asbestos by a number of different employers. C, BS and SD all argued that they were severally liable only to the share of risk created by their breach of duty; in addition, C submitted that it should not be liable at all, because of the period when B had been solely responsible for his exposure to asbestos dust. "Held" where employers were liable on the basis that they had negligently exposed an employee to asbestos, thereby creating a material risk of mesothelioma, it was fair that they should be severally liable only to the extent of that share of risk created by their breach of duty. The cases were remitted to lower courts to redetermine damages based on the proportion of risk attributable to each employer.
BARKER V CORUS (UK) PLC
United Kingdom--
[2006] UKHL 20, 3 May 2006. Appeal by the employers, C, BS and SD, against a CA decision ([2004] EWCA Civ 545; [2005] 3 All ER 661) in respect of their liability for damages for exposing B, M and P to asbestos dust. B had had three exposures to asbestos, the second of which was as a result of a breach of duty by C, although the third had arisen when B was self-employed. P had been exposed to asbestos by four employers, for different lengths of time. M had also been exposed to asbestos by a number of different employers. C, BS and SD all argued that they were severally liable only to the share of risk created by their breach of duty; in addition, C submitted that it should not be liable at all, because of the period when B had been solely responsible for his exposure to asbestos dust. "Held" where employers were liable on the basis that they had negligently exposed an employee to asbestos, thereby creating a material risk of mesothelioma, it was fair that they should be severally liable only to the extent of that share of risk created by their breach of duty. The cases were remitted to lower courts to redetermine damages based on the proportion of risk attributable to each employer.
BARKER V CORUS (UK) PLC
United Kingdom--