The But for test Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

The But for test - Essay Example Such pandects believe that as far as justice is concerned, one person should not be the reason for other person suffering injuries or any physical calamities and so as long as the law can proof that but for the defendant’s action, the complainant would not have suffered, the defendant should be made to face the full damages caused. The other school of thought also hold the idea that laws are meant to be amended and changed to suit the human society. For this reason, they see nothing wrong with logical changes that arise from the need to protect the larger interest of society. With such two schools of thought all seeming to have some point to prove, the discussion and conclusion of the paper would bring one of the schools of thoughts higher to the other. How Fairchild (2003) have affected the original application of the ‘but for’ test The Fairchild (2003) emanated from the case, Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002]UKHL 22. In the case, the wife of Mr. Fairchild was seeking justice for her husband, who had worked for different employers, who had all, in one way or the other negligently exposed him to asbestos. Since Mr. Fairchild died as a result of suffering pleural mesothelioma, Mrs. Fairchild was actually suing the employers for negligence. As far as the ‘but for’ test was concerned, her major claim was that ‘but for’ the exposure that her husband suffered at the hands of the different employers, her husband would not have died. But there was going to be more than just this contextual assumption.... as long as the law can proof that but for the defendant’s action, the complainant would not have suffered, the defendant should be made to face the full damages caused. The other school of thought also hold the idea that laws are meant to be amended and changed to suit the human society. For this reason, they see nothing wrong with logical changes that arise from the need to protect the larger interest of society. With such two schools of thought all seeming to have some point to prove, the discussion and conclusion of the paper would bring one of the schools of thoughts higher to the other. How Fairchild (2003) have affected the original application of the ‘but for’ test The Fairchild (2003) emanated from the case, Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002]UKHL 22. In the case, the wife of Mr. Fairchild was seeking justice for her husband, who had worked for different employers, who had all, in one way or the other negligently exposed him to asbestos. Sinc e Mr. Fairchild died as a result of suffering pleural mesothelioma, Mrs. Fairchild was actually suing the employers for negligence. As far as the ‘but for’ test was concerned, her major claim was that ‘but for’ the exposure that her husband suffered at the hands of the different employers, her husband would not have died. But there was going to be more than just this contextual assumption as the judges who heard the case would have different interpretations of the ‘but for’ test to give as far as the case that was presented was concerned. Basically, she had to proof that the sole cause of her husband’s contraction of mesothelioma was as a result of the inhalations he had from his employers are there exists several environmental factors that can expose a person to the disease causing