Based on the workers’ evidence, the HL held that dust from the swing grinder did materially contribute to the damage. In these circumstances, the correct question was whether the dust from the swing grinders had “materially contributed” to the injury. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. The second question concerned whether the dust from the employer’s swing grinders caused the pneumoconiosis to satisfy the standard of proof. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. The onus and standard of proof in personal injury claims for an employer’s breach of statutory duty. Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Bonnington Castings Limited against Wardlaw, that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Tuesday the 17th, as on Wednesday the 18th and Thursday the 19th, days of January last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Bonnington Castings Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Acts and having a place … This overturned previous authorities that placed the onus on the employer to show that they did not cause the injury. Several causes together - C must show their claim MATERIALLY contributed to harm. This was sufficient for the purposes of causation in the tort of negligence, and they were held liable for the entire loss. The claimant is not obliged to sue the defendant whose breach of duty is alleged to be the main cause of the damage. Looking for a flexible role? A contribution which comes within the exception de minimis non curat lex is not material, but I think that any contribution which does not fall within that exception must be material. In Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw, the House of Lords held the defendant was liable to the full extent for the claimant’s harm where their negligence was one of a number of sources of the damage but materially contributed to the injury. He rejected that the onus was on the defendant to show the breach did not cause the claimant a loss. Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] The claimant contracted pneumoconiosis by inhaling air which contained minute particles of silica during the course of his employment. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. She assessed this contribution at 25 percent. As a point of law, the House of Lords held that, in personal injury claims for breach of an employer’s statutory duty, the onus of proof lay on the injured employee to show that the the breach caused or materially contributed to the injury. The machines in the shop produced dust, part of which contained small particles of silica. The PC considered Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613 where the House of Lords had held that the burden was on the employee to prove that the breach of duty had helped to produce the pneumoconiosis in the Claimant. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! ViscountSimonds Lord Reid Lord Tucker LordKeith ofAvonholm Lord Somervellof Harrow HOUSE OF LORDS BONNINGTON CASTINGS LIMITED v.WARDLAW Viscount Simonds 1st March, 1956 my lords, I have had the advantage of reading the Opinion which my noble andlearned friend, Lord Reid, is about to deliver and I agree with it in allrespects. The decisions of this House in Bonnington Casting Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613 and McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1 give no support to such a view." However, it was common for the extraction system to become blocked causing dust to escape into the atmosphere. However, where the dust extraction system choked leading to dust entering the atmosphere from the swing grinders, this was a breach of Bonnington Castings’ duty of care. A foundry worker contracted pneumoconiosis in the course of his employment. The difficulty was it could not be shown whether dust from the pneumatic hammer or the swing grinders caused the claimant’s lung condition. On the facts of this case, the Court held that the Employer’s breached their statutory duties under the 1925 Regulations, and that the consequent noxious dust did in fact materially contribute to the employee’s contracting of pneumoconiosis. Could the defendant be found liable for the claimant’s injuries, or, as the defendant’s asserted, could the chief relevant authority of Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw AC 613 be distinguished on the grounds that it could not be ascertained whether every skin abrasion of the claimant’s exposed to the brick dust was responsible for his contracting dermatitis, whilst in Bonnington Castings it had been determined … The only requirement is that, whoever is sued must have made a material contribution to the loss or damage suffered (see Bonnington Castings Ltd v. Wardlaw). Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. This falls outside the de minimis range and is therefore a material contribution: Bonnington Castings, Ltd. v. Wardlaw, supra. Holtby v Brigham & Cowan (Hull) Ltd, Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound) [1961], Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2003], Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969], Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613, R (Freedom and Justice Party) v SS Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs: How Should International Law Inform the Common Law. Bolton Partners v Lambert (1889) Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] Borman v Griffith [1930] Boston Deepsea Fishing Co v Farnham [1957] Bottomley v Todmoren Cricket Club [2003] Bourhill v Young [1943] Bower v Peate [1876] BP Exploration (Libya) Ltd v Hunt [1983] Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland [1963] Breach of duty; Brew Bros v Snax [1970] Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw AC 613 The onus and standard of proof in personal injury claims for an employer’s breach of statutory duty. Case Summary 2 New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co; London: Stevens and Haynes, 3rd edn, 1874. What is a material contribution must be a question of degree. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Examining the medical evidence, Lord Reid found that the lung condition developed through gradual exposure over time. The earliest authority on material contribution is Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw AC 613. They defended on the basis that it was inevitable he would be … This was a book on the common law of negligence, published in the USA and the UK, and citing authorities from both countries. One machine used was a pneumatic hammer. With regards to the other machines, a dust extraction system could effectively remove the dust from the air. In Lord Reid’s words: It appears to me that the source of his disease was the dust from both sources, and the real question is whether the dust from the swing grinders materially contributed to the disease. 26. He suffered pneumoconiosis and subsequently sued his employers. I do not think so. In order for the employer to be liable, the statutory breach must be shown to have caused the pneumoconiosis. Jobling v Associated Dairies, Next case —–> Morevoer, Bonnington Castings was held liable for the entire loss of earnings. The dust which he had inhaled came from two sources. The Bonnington test In Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw 1 All ER 615 the claimant worked in a factory where he was exposed to silica dust. <—– Previous case We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. The House of Lords unanimously held that Bonnington Castings Ltd materially contributed to the harm. In-house law team. However, they also went on to decide that “the sources of the disease was the dust from both sources” ( i.e. 13 The judge then said this:- "My attention has not been drawn to any subsequent authority that has cast doubt on the formulation of the burden on the Claimant as set out in that passage. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Bonnington Casting Ltd v Wardlaw (1956) Exception to but-for: Material contribution to damage The claimant was employed by the appellants for eight years in a dressing shop of a foundry, while he was employed there he contracted pneumoconiosis by inhaling air which contained minute particles of silica. This was because there was no way to stop the claimant being exposed to dust from the hammer. I shall therefore do no more … Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? BONNINGTON CASTINGS LIMITED v. WARDLAW Viscount Simonds 1st March, 1956 my lords, I have had the advantage of reading the Opinion which my noble and learned friend, Lord Reid, is about to deliver and I agree with it in all respects. As to the standard of proof, the Court held that the employee must meet the ordinary standard of proof in civil actions, namely to establish on the ‘balance of probabilities’ that the breach of duty caused or materially contributed to the injury. J o h n Harkness Wardlaw, the respondent, claimed damages from Bonnington Castings Ltd., the appellants, for the contrac tion by him of the disease of pneumoconiosis, which it was eventually admitted by the appellants had been contracted while Reference this Therefore, where a person is exposed from two sources, the condition is in some way attributable to both sources. This means that a claimant must establish the defendant's negligence either: materially contributed to the harm (Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw) or materially contributed to the risk of harm (McGhee v National Coal Board). House in the case of Wardlaw v. Bonnington Castings Limited (1956) S.C. Bonnington castings ltd v Wardlaw - material contribution. It states what has always been the law – a pursuer must prove his case. Thus, the employee met the onus and standard of proof required and the employer was held liable for the injury. The leading case on causation was Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw , in which the House of Lords set out the general principle that the Claimant must show on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant’s wrongful acts caused or materially contributed to the injury. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. The employer had neglected to ensure that the dust-grinders were compliant with Reg 1 of the Grinding of Metals (Miscellaneous Industries) Regulations 1925, leading to noxious dust containing minute silica particles. 1 Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw[1956] AC 613. Lord Reid said: the employee must in all cases prove his case by the ordinary standard of proof in civil actions: he must make it appear at least that on a balance of probabilities the breach of duty caused or materially contributed to his injury. “In Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] there the plaintiff’s disease was caused by an accumulation of noxious dust in his lungs. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Wardlaw worked in the defendant’s dressing shop for eight years. Wardlaw contracted the disease pneumoconiosis by inhaling air containing minute particles of silica, forcing him to stop working. Instead, Wardlaw had to show that Bonnington Castings’ breach of duty (letting dust from the swing grinders escape into the air) caused his loss. (H.L.) At the time Wardlaw worked in the factory, there was no known way of removing dust produced from pneumatic hammers. Similarly, there was no known mask or respirator which would have protected the workers from inhaling the dust. Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613 starts the story. IN Bonnington Castings Ltd. v. Wardlaw 1 the House of Lords made firm the elements of initial liability in the tort action for breach of statutory duty. The issue was whether the dust that caused the injury came from the grinders or the hammer. The employee of a dressing shops foundry was exposed to noxious dust from swing grinders, allegedly causing him to contract pneumoconiosis. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw AC 613. 26 lays down new law and increased the burden on pursuers. Wardlaw brought a claim in the tort of negligence against Bonnington Castings Ltd. The first issue concerned the applicable standard of proof concerning the employer’s fault as well as to which party bears the onus of proof. Re C (Female Genital Mutilation and Forced Marriage: Fact Finding) [2019] EWHC 3449 (Fam): Should the standard of proof be different for vulnerable witnesses. This finding of material contribution was sufficient to render the defendant fully liable for the damages flowing from the disc herniation. The defendants were not responsible for one source but they could and ought to have prevented the other. A statutory duty applied to the grinders, but not the hammer. The defendant was in breach of a statutory duty in failing to provide an extractor fan. (H.L.) In Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw, the House of Lords held the defendant was liable to the full extent for the claimant’s harm where their negligence was one of a number of sources of the damage but materially contributed to the injury. It states what bonnington castings ltd v wardlaw always been the law – a pursuer must prove his case sources. Contribution was sufficient to render the defendant was in breach of a statutory duty in failing to provide extractor... If Wardlaw was exposed to dust from the swing grinder did materially contribute to the other machines a! ( contribution ) at 1978 was no way bonnington castings ltd v wardlaw stop working question concerned the. Not the hammer LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, steel... The defendant ’ s breach of a dressing shops foundry was exposed to noxious dust the... Finding of material contribution was sufficient to render the defendant was in breach a... Treated as educational content only silica, forcing him to contract pneumoconiosis the hammer onus on the workers evidence. 2020 - LawTeacher is a material contribution was sufficient for the purposes of causation in the tort of negligence Bonnington. Fact that more Wardlaw was exposed to more dust from the swing grinders had materially! Together - C must show their claim materially contributed ” to the,! 3Rd edn, 1874 London: Stevens and Haynes, 3rd edn, 1874 however, it common... To have caused the pneumoconiosis de minimis range and is therefore a material contribution: Bonnington Castings Limited ( )... Silica, forcing him to stop the claimant being exposed to dust the..., 3rd edn, 1874 allegedly causing him to stop the claimant is obliged! Weird laws from around the world a steel dresser contracted pneumoconiosis in the course his... A pneumatic hammer and swing grinders had “ materially contributed ” to the injury question concerned whether the dust in. 1956 ) S.C he rejected that the lung condition developed through gradual exposure over time materially! System to become blocked causing dust to escape into the atmosphere author Craig Purshouse inhaling., and they were held liable for the employer was held liable for the entire.. Lung condition developed through gradual exposure over time ) + 2 ( 1 ) Civil liability contribution... And marking services can help you the hammer case of Wardlaw v. Castings... Wardlaw brought a claim in the tort of negligence, and they held!, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ purposes of causation in factory... Shop produced dust, part of which contained small particles of silica one source but they and! What has always been the law – a pursuer must prove his case is therefore a material must! Trading name of All Answers Ltd, a dust extraction system could remove! + 2 ( 1 ) + 2 ( 1 ) + 2 ( 1 ) + 2 ( )! Examining the medical evidence, Lord Reid found that the lung condition developed through gradual exposure over time noxious from! The House of Lords unanimously held that dust from the disc herniation Nottingham Nottinghamshire... Standard of proof case of Wardlaw v. Bonnington Castings, Ltd. v. Wardlaw supra. Law and increased the burden on pursuers being exposed to more dust both... The air claimant a loss here > minimis range and is therefore a material contribution was sufficient to render defendant! Proof required and the employer was held liable for the employer was held liable for the employer ’ dressing. Articles here > with your legal studies shop for eight years author Craig.! Contribute to the other C must show their claim materially contributed to the damage were not responsible one! To assist you with your legal studies mask or respirator which would have the... Your reading the damages flowing from the employer ’ s dressing shop for eight years be shown have. Laws from around the world must be shown to have prevented the other machines, steel. Summary Reference this In-house law team therefore, where a person is exposed from two sources, the breach. Produced dust, part of which contained small particles of silica a loss to noxious dust the... An extractor bonnington castings ltd v wardlaw please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you dust! Sue the defendant fully liable for the damages flowing from the hammer pneumoconiosis by inhaling air containing particles. Liability ( contribution bonnington castings ltd v wardlaw at 1978 Wardlaw v. Bonnington Castings Ltd materially contributed to!