PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: This was an appeal against the dismissal of a fatal mesothelioma claim where the deceased person had been exposed only to a very low dose of asbestos by the defendant. The issue at trial was whether the defendant’s negligence had materially increased the risk of the deceased person contracting mesothelioma. The parties disagreed on how the court should approach calculating the increase in risk. The Court of Appeal concluded that the approach adopted by the trial judge was not wrong on the basis of the expert evidence available at trial. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. In dismissing the appeal, the court provides very important guidance on the issue of causation in low dose mesothelioma claims. Written by Peter Hale, barrister, 12 King’s Bench Walk.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with ³ÉÈËÓ°Òô or register for a free trial
EXISTING USER? SIGN IN CONTINUE READING GET A QUOTE
To read the full news article, register for a free Lexis+ trial
**Trials are provided to all ³ÉÈËÓ°Òô content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these ³ÉÈËÓ°Òô services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
* denotes a required field
Psychiatric injury—secondary victims—case trackerThis case tracker reviews the case law which has been decided since the lead case of Alcock v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police in 1991. Subsequent case law developed the concept of secondary victims and explored the extent that courts would allow
Psychiatric injury—establishing liabilityLiability for psychiatric injury is dependent in part on the nature of the injuries suffered and the manner in which they were sustained.Classifying the victimWhere a claimant suffers both physical and psychiatric injury (even if the physical injury was very
PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: This appeal judgment of the Divisional Court deals with the permissibility of issuing more than one claim on a single (group) claim form. It provides guidance on the procedure to be adopted when issuing claims for multiple claimants with related or similar
Occupiers’ liability claims—lawful visitorsBackgroundThe Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) was enacted to provide for a ‘common duty of care’ owed by occupiers of premises. The duty was ‘common’ in that it was owed to various categories of lawful or authorised visitors such as invitees,
0330 161 1234