Abstract:
The difficulty of establishing a causal link between wrongful exposures to an injury causing agent by successive employers and the eventual injury has, in the interests of justice, led to a radical departure from the ordinary requirement as to causation. The problem is exacerbated in a situation where some of the exposures were in consequence of breaches of duty while the other exposures did not involve any breaches of duty. Does the Fairchild exception to the general rule extend to such a situation? If it does, is the Fairchild type of defendant to be made responsible for the whole loss? This is of crucial importance when some of the defendant employers or insurers are insolvent. These and other issues are considered below.