Laleng, Per (2011) Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd and Willmore v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: A Material Contribution to Uncertainty? Modern Law Review, 74 (5). pp. 777-793. ISSN 0026-7961. (doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00871.x) (The full text of this publication is not currently available from this repository. You may be able to access a copy if URLs are provided)
|The full text of this publication is not currently available from this repository. You may be able to access a copy if URLs are provided. (Contact us about this Publication)|
In the conjoined cases of Sienkiewicz and Willmore, the Supreme Court decided that the exceptional Fairchild approach to the proof of causation in negligence applied where a mesothelioma victim had been negligently exposed to asbestos by one defendant at a level well below unavoidable environmental asbestos exposure. The negligent exposures in both cases materially increased the risk of mesothelioma thereby satisfying the Fairchild test. Whilst reasserting the primacy of the common law as governing the rules of causation in mesothelioma cases, the Supreme Court failed to clarify the scope of the Fairchild exception. Moreover, in an extensive obiter discussion of epidemiological evidence, the Supreme Court has raised more questions than it has answered relating to the role, if any, of scientific evidence in the law of toxic torts.
|Divisions:||Faculties > Social Sciences > Kent Law School|
|Depositing User:||Helen Jarvis|
|Date Deposited:||25 Oct 2011 13:53 UTC|
|Last Modified:||30 Apr 2014 13:48 UTC|
|Resource URI:||https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/28316 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)|