Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 11:00:35 -0400

From: David Cheifetz

Subject: Fairchild II

My, my. Proportional (several) liability, only, within the Fairchild exception?

On the joint or proportional liability issue, I agree with Lord Rodger that the rest did to Fairchild what Wilsher did to McGhee. I am, once again, reminded of the Humpty Dumpty speech about the meaning of words.

It's the thin edge of the wedge if, ultimately, fairness to the multiple wrongdoers is the crux of the reason for proportional liability rather than liability in solidum (joint liability). Once one starts down that road, the merits of the distinctions justifying the imposition of joint liability in one situation and proportional in another approach angels dancing on pins territory.

David Cheifetz

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Stevens"
To: "Vaughan Black"
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: ODG: Fairchild II

Barker v SG is now out.

Employer held liable but only for the chance of avoiding the harm. It seems right to me, but I still cannot understand why it makes a difference that there is a 'single agent' (cf Wilsher). With that caveat, I think Lord Hoffmann has gone a long way towards clarifying the law.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>