翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Barker Lakes ・ Barker lever ・ Barker Meadow Reservoir ・ Barker Mill ・ Barker Nunatak ・ Barker Passage ・ Barker Peak ・ Barker railway station ・ Barker Ranch ・ Barker Range ・ Barker Reservoir ・ Barker Review of Housing Supply ・ Barker River ・ Barker Road (Peak Tram) ・ Barker Ten Mile, North Carolina ・ Barker v Corus (UK) plc ・ Barker v. Wingo ・ Barker's Bush ・ Barker's Discount Department Stores ・ Barker's Farm ・ Barker's Ground ・ Barker's notation ・ Barker's Pool ・ Barker, Broome County, New York ・ Barker, New York ・ Barker, Niagara County, New York ・ Barker, Texas ・ Barker, Uruguay ・ Barker, West Virginia ・ Barker/DZP Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Barker v Corus (UK) plc ： ウィキペディア英語版 Barker v Corus (UK) plc ''Barker v Corus (UK) plc'' () (UKHL 20 ) is a notable House of Lords decision in the area of industrial liability in English tort law, which deals with the area of causation. In this case, the House of Lords reconsidered its ruling in the earlier landmark case ''Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd'' concerning the liability of multiple tortfeasors. The main question in this case was whether the solvent employers should pick up the proportion of the damage for which the insolvent employers were responsible. In other words, should a tortfeasor or a claimant bear the risk of the other tortfeasors going insolvent? ==Facts== Like in ''Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd'', the claimants had contracted mesothelioma after having worked for a number of different employers, all of whom had negligently exposed them to asbestos. What distinguishes this case from Fairchild is that the conduct of the employers of the claimants were not exclusively tortious.〔Barker v Corus () UKHL 20〕 Mesothelioma is a fatal illness which is caused by exposure to asbestos, but the risk of which increases depending on how often one is exposed. Because of long latency periods (it takes 25 to 50 years before symptoms of disease become evident) it was impossible to know which employer actually caused the disease, although all of them admittedly increased the risk of the disease occurring. Unlike ''Fairchild'', in which the House of Lords held that all the employers were jointly and severally liable for the damage, in this case some of the employers have become insolvent. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Barker v Corus (UK) plc」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.