header-logo header-logo

The blame game

16 June 2011 / Kenneth Warner
Issue: 7470 / Categories: Features , Health & safety , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Kenneth Warner examines causation & industrial disease

It is a basic principle of the law of torts that a defendant will be liable only for the harm that the defendant has caused. In cases of doubt it is incumbent on the plaintiff to show, on the civil standard of proof, that the tortious conduct of the defendant caused the injury that is complained of. In effect, evidence that the tort is the most likely cause of the harm will suffice to discharge the burden, but in principle anything short of that should result in a rejection of the plaintiff’s claim. This rule can cause great difficulties for a plaintiff, where there exist multiple possible causes in fact for the ultimate harm suffered. They may be multiple “guilty” causes; as where the claimant has been exposed to toxic agents with a number of different employers, each independently capable of producing the same disease. Again they may be “guilty” but separate causes which are capable of working cumulatively to bring about the plaintiff’s ultimate harm, as

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll