Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:51:22 -0400
to my comments that "The problem with some of the Lords is that they seem
to treat statements of doctors who are basing their premises on scientific
measures of knowledge (i.e. near certainty) as if they controlled the
law's separate approach to the matter (balance of probabilities)".
Watthey noted: "This is a little unfair. Their Lordships are quite clear
in recognising that the medical evidence is inconclusive as to the precise
aetiology of mesothelioma and therefore whether each employer's default
played a part in the development of the disease or if it must have been
contracted as a result of exposure in only one job."
have been more clear that what I was referring to was not their Lordships
treatment of the facts in Fairchild but some of their Lordships (I don't
have the judgment in front of me so I can't name names) use of expert
testimony from McGhee to impeach Lord Bridge's reassessment of that case
in Wilsher. To my mind, it seemed that they were relying on scientific
statements (with different standards of proof) to undermine what was essentially
Lord Bridge's legal point regarding a permissible inference. I hope this
makes my point clearer.
Previous Message ~ Index ~
Next Message >>>>>