Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:16:50.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Remit of the Fairchild Principle and the ‘Doubles the Risk’ Test for Causation

Sienkiewicz v Greif [2011] UKSC 10

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Claire McIvor
Claire McIvor*
Affiliation:
Birmingham Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Notes
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 559 - 563
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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.