logo
Call us: +44 (0)1865 244727

  • Home
  • Scope
  • News
  • Products
    • RADAR
    • CALL-OFF PROJECTS
  • Clients
  • Contact
  • How we work
    • Independent
      • Common law orthodoxies
      • Sensationalism
      • Expert witness
      • Regulation and Politics
      • Tied services
    • Up-to-date
      • Timely
      • Insurance Scenarios
      • Probabilistic Methods
    • Expert
      • Personal Injury
      • Trends
    • Innovative
  • Database
    • Member’s login
    • Member’s Settings
    • Register
    • RADAR Database
  • Recent projects
    • EMFs
    • STRESS AT WORK
    • WHIPLASH
    • WELDING RODS: MANGANESE EXPOSURE
    • ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE
    • Other Projects



Oct 2012: The Phurnacite cases

Nov 12, 2012
by Andrew@Reliabilityoxford.co.uk
0 Comment
Evidence from:

Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 2936 (QB)

Case No: HQ09X03547

JEFFREY JONES AND OTHERS

– and –

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

– and –

COAL PRODUCTS LIMITED

The claimants failed to establish that carcinogenesis is a cumulative disease process when viewed under the lens of legal causation. Paradoxically most medical experts agree that the mechanism does in fact involve an accumulation of DNA damage but this does not influence the legal thinking.

1) the disease can occur with no external exposure

2) when multiple carcinogens are present in the environment increased risk of DNA damage arising from one exposure does not mean that the cancer was actually caused by that given source of exposure.

3) any threshold test of material risk would at present be arbitrary.

The case reverses a growing sense that any contribution to the risk of indivisible harm could be found liable for 100% of the damages, as appeared to be the case in Bailey v MOD. However, this is not the end of the debate about material contribution in indivisible harm cases.

This was a High Court decision.

For indivisible diseases, the claimant must aim to show that a given step in causation acts cumulatively if he wants to invoke the material contribution rule.

 

About the Author
Social Share

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

*
*

captcha *

Search Documents


Categories

  • Causation
    • de minimis
    • material contribution
  • Date of knowledge
  • Diagnosis
  • Duty of Care
  • Exposure estimation data
  • Mitigation
  • Motor related injury
  • News
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • November 2020
  • January 2020
  • November 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • April 2018
  • November 2017
  • July 2017
  • April 2017
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • November 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • July 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012

© Re: Liability (Oxford) Ltd. 2012. All rights reserved.
Website Design by The Big Picture