Sienkiewicz v Greif [2011] UKSC 10
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
1 [2002] UKHL 22.
2 [2011] UKSC 10 at para. 168.
3 Ibid at para. 189.
4 [2006] UKHL 20.
5 Sienkiewicz v Greif [2009] EWCA Civ 1159 at para. 23.
6 [2011] UKSC 10 at para. 4.
7 Ibid at para. 82.
8 Ibid at para. 11.
9 Ibid at para. 80.
10 For a more detailed discussion of this issue, see C McIvor, ‘Debunking some judicial myths about epidemiology and its relevance to UK tort law’, Medical Law Review 2013; doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwt017.
11 See, for example, Rothman, Kenneth J., Epidemiology: An Introduction, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), at pp. 24–56 Google Scholar.
12 Russellyn S. Carruth and Bernard D. Goldstein, “Relative Risk Greater than Two in Proof of Causation in Toxic Tort Litigation”, 41 Jurimetrics (2001) pp. 195 et sqq., at p. 199.
13 509 US 579 (1993).
14 See, generally, Carruth and Goldstein, “Relative Risk”, supra n11 and M Geistfeld, “Scientific Uncertainty and Causation in Tort Law”, 54 Vanderbilt Law Review (2001) pp. 1011 et sqq. For a critical appraisal of the RR>2 rule, see Alex Broadbent, “Epidemiological Evidence in Proof of Specific Causation”, 17 Legal Theory (2011), pp. 237 et sqq.
15 [2002] EWHC 1420 (QB).
16 Under s. 3(1) of the 1987 Act, there is a defect if ‘the safety of the product is not such as persons generally would be entitled to expect.’
17 See ibid, s. 2(1).
18 [2007] EWCA Civ 1261.
19 See, further, McIvor, Claire, “The Doubles the Risk Test for Causation and Other Related Judicial Myths about Epidemiology”, in Chamberlain, Erica, Neyers, Jason and Pitel, Stephen (eds.), Challenging Orthodoxy in Tort Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, forthcoming 2013)Google Scholar.
20 See for example, the comments of Lord Phillips at paras. 82–93 and 96–103.