Barker v. Corus: Understanding Modified Apportionment Rules in Mesothelioma Cases
Mesothelioma, a devastating cancer primarily caused by asbestos exposure, presents unique challenges in personal injury law. When a victim has been exposed to asbestos by multiple employers, determining liability can become a complex legal battle. The landmark case of Barker v. Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20 significantly altered the landscape of mesothelioma claims, introducing modified apportionment rules that, while later amended for mesothelioma cases, continue to influence other areas of tort law. Understanding this case is crucial for anyone involved in personal injury claims, whether as a claimant, defendant, or legal professional.
The Core of the Matter: Fairchild and the “But-For” Test
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 addressed the difficulty of proving causation in mesothelioma cases where a worker had been exposed to asbestos by multiple employers. The traditional “but-for” test – requiring the claimant to prove that but for the defendant’s negligence, the injury would not have occurred – proved insurmountable.
Mesothelioma can be caused by a single asbestos fiber, and with current science, it’s impossible to pinpoint which employer was responsible for the specific fiber that triggered the disease. Fairchild established an exception to the “but-for” test, ruling that if a defendant’s negligence materially increased the risk of the claimant developing mesothelioma, they could be held liable, even if causation couldn’t be definitively proven.
Barker v. Corus: Introducing Proportional Liability
Barker v. Corus built upon the Fairchild ruling but introduced a critical modification: proportional liability. The case involved a worker who had been exposed to asbestos by multiple employers and also during a period of self-employment where he was contributorily negligent. The key question was whether Corus UK Ltd, one of the employers, should be held jointly and severally liable for the entire damages, or only for a portion reflecting their contribution to the overall risk.
The House of Lords, in a split decision, opted for proportional liability. They reasoned that since liability under Fairchild was based on increasing the risk of mesothelioma, rather than directly causing it, the damage should be characterized as the creation of risk. And because risks are divisible, each defendant should only be liable for their share of the total risk.
This meant that Corus UK Ltd was only responsible for a percentage of the damages that mirrored their contribution to the claimant’s asbestos exposure. This departure from the traditional principle of joint and several liability had significant implications.
The Fallout and the Compensation Act 2006
The Barker v. Corus decision was met with considerable criticism, particularly from those advocating for the rights of mesothelioma victims. The ruling shifted the risk of insolvent or untraceable employers from the remaining defendants to the claimants themselves. If one or more employers were no longer in business or couldn’t be found, the claimant might only recover a fraction of the compensation they were due.
In response to these concerns, the UK Parliament swiftly enacted the Compensation Act 2006. Section 3 of this Act specifically reversed the Barker v. Corus ruling for mesothelioma cases, reinstating joint and several liability. This ensured that mesothelioma victims could once again claim full compensation from any liable employer, regardless of the solvency or traceability of other potential defendants.
The Enduring Legacy of Barker v. Corus
While the Compensation Act 2006 effectively overturned Barker v. Corus for mesothelioma claims, the case’s principles continue to resonate in other areas of tort law. The concept of proportional liability, where damages are apportioned based on each defendant’s contribution to the risk of harm, remains relevant in cases involving other asbestos-related diseases (like asbestosis or lung cancer) and in other situations where causation is difficult to establish.
The Barker v. Corus decision also clarified that the Fairchild exception applies regardless of whether the other exposures to asbestos were tortious, non-tortious, or even self-induced. This means that even if a claimant was partly responsible for their exposure, a negligent employer could still be held liable for their contribution to the increased risk.
Key Takeaways and Advice
- Barker v. Corus modified apportionment rules: It established proportional liability based on contribution to risk, not joint and several liability, in mesothelioma cases.
- Compensation Act 2006 reversed the decision: This act reinstated joint and several liability for mesothelioma claims specifically.
- Proportional liability endures: The principle of proportional liability from Barker v. Corus still applies to other asbestos-related diseases and tort cases where causation is hard to prove.
- Fairchild exception: The Fairchild exception can still apply even if the claimant was partly responsible for their exposure.
If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma or another asbestos-related disease, seeking legal advice is crucial. Understanding the nuances of Barker v. Corus, the Compensation Act 2006, and related case law is essential to navigating the complexities of these claims and securing the compensation you deserve.
Disclaimer: This blog post provides general information and should not be considered legal advice. Consult with a qualified legal professional for advice tailored to your specific situation.