Understanding Causation in Mesothelioma Claims: The Landmark Sienkiewicz v. Greif Case
Mesothelioma is a devastating cancer primarily caused by asbestos exposure. For individuals diagnosed with this disease, seeking legal recourse can be a crucial step in securing financial compensation and justice. However, proving causation – the link between asbestos exposure and the development of mesothelioma – can be complex. The case of Sienkiewicz v. Greif (UK) Ltd [2011] UKSC 10 significantly clarified the rules of causation in mesothelioma cases, particularly when exposure occurred with only one employer. This article will explore the details of this landmark case and its implications for mesothelioma claims in the UK.
The Challenge of Proving Causation in Mesothelioma Cases
Mesothelioma has a long latency period, often developing decades after the initial asbestos exposure. This delay, coupled with the fact that individuals may have been exposed to asbestos from multiple sources (e.g., occupational, environmental), makes it challenging to pinpoint the exact cause of the disease.
The traditional legal principle requires a claimant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant’s negligence caused the injury. In mesothelioma cases, this translates to proving that exposure to asbestos due to the defendant’s negligence was the likely cause of the cancer. However, due to the nature of the disease and the difficulty in tracing the source of asbestos fibers, this standard of proof proved difficult to meet.
The Fairchild Exception and the Compensation Act 2006
Recognizing these challenges, the courts developed the “Fairchild exception” to the traditional causation rule. This exception, established in the case of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, allows a claimant to establish causation if they can demonstrate that the defendant’s negligence materially increased the risk of developing mesothelioma, even if it cannot be proven that the defendant’s asbestos exposure was the sole or primary cause.
Section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 further reinforced the Fairchild exception in mesothelioma cases. It states that a person who negligently exposed another to asbestos and materially increased their risk of developing mesothelioma can be held liable, even if other exposures may have also contributed to the risk.
Sienkiewicz v. Greif (UK) Ltd: Clarifying the Rules
The Sienkiewicz v. Greif (UK) Ltd case addressed key questions regarding the application of the Fairchild exception, particularly in cases involving a single defendant and environmental exposure.
The Facts of the Case
Mrs. Enid Costello died of mesothelioma in 2006. Her daughter, Mrs. Karen Sienkiewicz, sued Greif (UK) Ltd, her mother’s former employer, alleging that Mrs. Costello’s mesothelioma was caused by asbestos exposure during her employment at Greif’s steel drum factory.
Mrs. Costello worked at the factory from 1966 to 1984. While asbestos was used in the manufacturing process, her exposure was considered “very light” and occurred through inhalation of the general factory atmosphere. Mrs. Costello was also exposed to low-level asbestos in the ambient atmosphere (environmental exposure), like the general population.
The trial judge found that Greif was in breach of its duties but that Mrs. Costello’s occupational exposure increased her background environmental risk of mesothelioma by only 18%. Applying a “doubles the risk” test, the judge concluded that causation was not established and dismissed the claim.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court overturned the trial judge’s decision and ruled in favor of Mrs. Sienkiewicz. The court clarified several important points:
- The Fairchild exception applies even in single-defendant cases: The court confirmed that the Fairchild exception applies even when the defendant is the sole alleged source of occupational asbestos exposure and the only other exposure is environmental.
- The “doubles the risk” test is not required: The court rejected the “doubles the risk” test, stating that epidemiological evidence supporting it is unreliable and that risk is not necessarily proportional to exposure.
- A “material increase in risk” need not be substantial: The court determined that a “material increase in risk” need not be substantial, only not so insignificant as to be disregarded under the de minimis principle (i.e., too trivial to merit consideration). The 18% increase in risk in Mrs. Costello’s case was found to be neither statistically insignificant nor de minimis, thus establishing liability.
Implications of the Decision
Sienkiewicz v. Greif significantly clarified the legal landscape for mesothelioma claims in the UK. The decision confirmed that:
- Claimants do not need to prove that a defendant’s negligence was the sole or primary cause of their mesothelioma.
- A modest increase in risk due to negligent asbestos exposure is sufficient to establish causation, even in single-defendant cases.
- The “doubles the risk” test is not a requirement for establishing causation in mesothelioma claims.
Seeking Legal Advice
If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, it is crucial to seek legal advice from a solicitor specializing in asbestos-related disease claims. A specialist solicitor can assess the circumstances of your exposure, advise you on the strength of your claim, and guide you through the legal process.
Many firms offer “no-win, no-fee” agreements, meaning you will not be responsible for legal fees if your claim is unsuccessful. Compensation can help cover medical expenses, lost income, and other financial burdens associated with mesothelioma. It can also provide financial security for your loved ones.
Time Limits for Making a Claim
It’s important to be aware of the time limits for making a mesothelioma claim. In England, claims generally need to be made within three years of diagnosis or death. However, courts may allow exceptions, particularly in mesothelioma cases. Seeking legal advice as early as possible is essential to ensure your claim is filed within the applicable time limits.
Conclusion
The Sienkiewicz v. Greif (UK) Ltd case represents a significant victory for mesothelioma victims and their families. By clarifying the rules of causation, the Supreme Court made it easier for individuals exposed to asbestos through negligence to seek justice and compensation. If you believe you have a mesothelioma claim, do not hesitate to seek legal advice from a specialist solicitor.