English Tort Law

Title

English Tort Law

S .M . Shamimul Hoque Chowdhury

Answer

This question raises some issues from negligence . In to answer this question it is necessary to know about negligence , duty of care and breach of duty , causation and remoteness . But here the most important parts are employers ' liability , multiple liability or causation , and personal injury . Here the main findings will be Betty Bloke is an employee of these companies or not , she can sue for asbestos-related mesothelioma as a third person

Here the facts are Harry Bloke worked as

a carpenter for thirty-five years , being employed by Right Ltd for ten years , then by Ruff Ltd for a further ten years and then by Shoddy plc for fifteen years . Right Ltd were shop fitters , Ruff Ltd produced asbestos prefabricated garages and Shoddy plc produced insulating panels for the building industry . In all of these jobs he was required to work with asbestos sheeting , which he usually had to cut to size either with hand saws or powered saws . Betty Bloke , Harry 's wife , always washed his work overalls every Saturday . She would shake them outside the back door to remove the dust before she put them in the washing machine . Betty has now been diagnosed with asbestos-related mesothelioma and is very ill . All three companies deny liability for her illness

Before attempt to discuss the potential liability of all three companies to Betty in negligence it is necessary to find the relationship between Betty and all three companies . Here it is not clear that Betty was an employee of these companies or not , though every Saturday remove the dust

In 1934 Lord Wright said in Lochgelly Iron and Coal Co v McMullan [1934]

`In strict legal analysis , negligence means more than heedless or careless conduct , whether in omission or commission : it properly connotes the complex concept of duty , breach and damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty was owing

In Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990] , the House of Lords held that the council was not liable on the basis that the council could not owe a greater duty of care to the claimant than the builder . In doing so the court also overruled Anns and the two-part test , preferring instead a new three-part test suggested by Lords Keith , Oliver and Bridge in Caparo v Dickman [1990] . In to impose liability on the employers Betty has to established foresight , proximity and fairness and it is the current test

In Caparo industries v Dickman [1990] , the shareholders in a company bought more shares and then made a successful takeover bid for the company after studying the audited accounts prepared by the defendants They later regretted the move and sued the auditors claiming that they had relied on accounts , which had shown a sizeable surplus rather than the deficit that was in fact the case . The House of Lords held that the auditors owed no duty of care since company accounts are not prepared for the purposes...