The plaintiff had contracted dermatitis as a result of exposure to brick dust. The plaintiff worked with brick dust during his working hours and there was no breach in relation to this exposure (i.e. it was non-tortious). His employers, however, were in breach of duty for failing to provide washing facilities for him to wash the brick dust off his skin at the end of the working day. As a result the brick dust was on his skin for an extended amount of time including his cycle journey home. Again, the plaintiff would not have contracted dermatitis but for the exposure to brick dust. The medical experts could not state with certainty whether the dermatitis was caused by the exposure during the working day (non-tortious) or through the extended time that the dust remained on his skin (tortious). The House of Lords again imposed liability on the defendant on the basis that their breach had materially increased the risk of the claimant’s injury. It seems that despite a difference in terminology there is no practical difference between materially contributing to the risk and materially increasing the risk in that case.
Answer
McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1 (HL)
Tags
#causation #law #negligence #tort
Question
The plaintiff had contracted dermatitis as a result of exposure to brick dust. The plaintiff worked with brick dust during his working hours and there was no breach in relation to this exposure (i.e. it was non-tortious). His employers, however, were in breach of duty for failing to provide washing facilities for him to wash the brick dust off his skin at the end of the working day. As a result the brick dust was on his skin for an extended amount of time including his cycle journey home. Again, the plaintiff would not have contracted dermatitis but for the exposure to brick dust. The medical experts could not state with certainty whether the dermatitis was caused by the exposure during the working day (non-tortious) or through the extended time that the dust remained on his skin (tortious). The House of Lords again imposed liability on the defendant on the basis that their breach had materially increased the risk of the claimant’s injury. It seems that despite a difference in terminology there is no practical difference between materially contributing to the risk and materially increasing the risk in that case.
Answer
?
Tags
#causation #law #negligence #tort
Question
The plaintiff had contracted dermatitis as a result of exposure to brick dust. The plaintiff worked with brick dust during his working hours and there was no breach in relation to this exposure (i.e. it was non-tortious). His employers, however, were in breach of duty for failing to provide washing facilities for him to wash the brick dust off his skin at the end of the working day. As a result the brick dust was on his skin for an extended amount of time including his cycle journey home. Again, the plaintiff would not have contracted dermatitis but for the exposure to brick dust. The medical experts could not state with certainty whether the dermatitis was caused by the exposure during the working day (non-tortious) or through the extended time that the dust remained on his skin (tortious). The House of Lords again imposed liability on the defendant on the basis that their breach had materially increased the risk of the claimant’s injury. It seems that despite a difference in terminology there is no practical difference between materially contributing to the risk and materially increasing the risk in that case.
Answer
McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1 (HL)
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it This approach was followed in McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1 (HL) where the plaintiff had contracted dermatitis as a result of exposure to brick dust. The plaintiff worked with brick dust during his working hours and there was no breach in relation to
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.