Barker v. Corus: Understanding Modified Apportionment Rules in Mesothelioma Cases
Mesothelioma, a devastating cancer primarily caused by asbestos exposure, presents unique legal challenges. According to Macmillan Cancer Support, court proceedings for asbestos-related injury claims must commence within three years of diagnosis, or from the date of death for family members. A key case that significantly shaped how these claims are handled in the UK is Barker v. Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20. This House of Lords decision initially modified the apportionment rules in mesothelioma cases, impacting how liability was distributed among multiple employers who had exposed a worker to asbestos.
The Fairchild Precedent
To fully grasp the significance of Barker v. Corus, it’s essential to understand its predecessor, Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd. In Fairchild, the House of Lords established an exception to the traditional “but-for” causation test. This exception applied to mesothelioma cases where a worker had been exposed to asbestos by multiple employers, and it was impossible to determine which specific exposure caused the disease. The Fairchild ruling allowed claimants to sue any employer who had materially increased the risk of harm, even without proving that their exposure was the direct cause.
The Facts of Barker v. Corus
Barker v. Corus involved a claimant, Mr. Barker, who had contracted mesothelioma after working for several employers, all of whom had negligently exposed him to asbestos. A distinguishing factor in this case was that some of the employers were now insolvent. The key question before the House of Lords was whether the solvent employers should be held jointly and severally liable for the entire damage, including the proportion of the damage attributable to the insolvent employers. In other words, who should bear the risk of other tortfeasors going insolvent: the remaining tortfeasors or the claimant?
The House of Lords Decision: Proportional Liability
In a split decision, the House of Lords in Barker v. Corus ruled that the solvent employer should not be jointly and severally liable, but only proportionately liable. This meant that each employer would only be responsible for a share of the damages that corresponded to their contribution to the risk of the employee developing mesothelioma. Lord Hoffmann, in his judgment, stated that attributing liability according to the relative degree of contribution to the chance of contracting the disease would “smooth the roughness of the justice which a rule of joint and several liability creates.”
The House of Lords’ decision was based on the premise that the damage caused was the creation of risk, and chances are infinitely divisible. Assessing damages would therefore involve quantifying the risk contributed by the particular defendant. This approach, according to the majority, ensured a fairer distribution of damages, aligning legal responsibility with actual negligence.
The Compensation Act 2006: Reversing Barker v. Corus for Mesothelioma
The Barker v. Corus decision sparked a swift and fierce political backlash. Concerns arose that the ruling would undermine full compensation for mesothelioma victims and their families, particularly in cases where some employers were insolvent or untraceable. In response, the UK Parliament enacted the Compensation Act 2006.
Section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 specifically reversed the Barker v. Corus ruling for mesothelioma cases. It reinstated joint and several liability, meaning that any responsible employer could be held liable for the full amount of compensation, regardless of their individual contribution to the risk. The employer could then seek contributions from other responsible parties. This provision ensures that mesothelioma victims receive full compensation, even if some of the responsible employers are no longer able to pay.
Impact and Implications
The Compensation Act 2006 has had a significant impact on mesothelioma claims in the UK. It has provided greater certainty for victims and their families, ensuring that they receive the compensation they deserve. The Act has also simplified the claims process, as victims no longer have to pursue multiple employers to recover full damages.
It is important to note that the Barker v. Corus decision still applies to other diseases caused by asbestos exposure, such as asbestosis and lung cancer. In these cases, liability is apportioned based on each employer’s contribution to the risk.
Seeking Legal Advice
If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma or another asbestos-related disease, it is crucial to seek legal advice from a specialist solicitor. An experienced lawyer can assess your case, explain your legal options, and help you pursue a claim for compensation. They can also navigate the complexities of asbestos litigation and ensure that your rights are protected.
Conclusion
Barker v. Corus represents a pivotal moment in the history of asbestos litigation in the UK. While the decision initially modified the apportionment rules in mesothelioma cases, the subsequent enactment of the Compensation Act 2006 reversed this change, reinstating joint and several liability for mesothelioma claims. This legislative intervention has provided greater protection for mesothelioma victims and their families, ensuring that they receive fair and just compensation for their suffering.