Abstract
This article argues that in cases where a defender has caused a portion of a divisible injury or disease (such as asbestosis), such defender should be liable only for an equivalent portion of the damages due to the pursuer. Judicial insistence that such a defender be liable in solidum for the whole of the loss is unprincipled and unjust.This article argues that in cases where a defender has caused a portion of a divisible injury or disease (such as asbestosis), such defender should be liable only for an equivalent portion of the damages due to the pursuer. Judicial insistence that such a defender be liable in solidum for the whole of the loss is unprincipled and unjust.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 99-105 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Edinburgh Law Review |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2008 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Causation and apportionment of damages in cases of divisible injury'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver