Write an argument for point 2 representing the applicant, also include counterarguments, and relevant journal articles so that the arguments made are supported. ASSESSMENT QUESTION Richard Maddox (Applicant) v Cowley Coalmines UK Ltd (Respondent) Supreme Court October 2023 Cowley Coalmines UK Ltd (CC-UK) is a medium sized company that mines and supplies coal to both commercial and domestic customers. The company employs 12 people, four of whom are involved in the actual mining activity. Richard Maddox is one of the four. Richard Maddox was an employee of CC-UK for 11 years before his retirement. He retired three years ago and is now 70 years of age. He was employed as a coal miner all his working life and, including CC-UK, worked for 3 other coal mines for approximately equal periods of time. Mr Maddox has been diagnosed with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and medical experts agree that, on balance, the cause was the continued inhalation of coal mine dust throughout his working life. Long term exposure to coal mine dust has been known to cause COPD - In addition, research over the past 20 years has shown that many, perhaps all, dusts previously considered inert can produce COPD or other chronic lung conditions from long-term exposures. CC-UK accept that they owe a duty of care to Mr Maddox but deny liability on the following grounds: 1. They did not breach their duty to Mr Maddox as the risk was negligible. They had therefore acted reasonably in ignoring it. 2. That even if there was a breach, then it was impossible to identify which employer caused the COPD disease. 3. If there was a breach and CC-UK had caused the damage, that damage was too remote. In the High Court, Hiscox J held: 1. The risk was small, and CC-UK had acted reasonably in ignoring it (Wagon Mound no.2 distinguished, Bolton v Stone applied) - RESPONDENT 2. On the balance of probabilities, it is not possible to identify which employer caused the damage (Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd distinguished) 3. The damage was too remote (Wagon Mound no.1 applied; Smith v Leech Brain distinguished) -RESPONDENT In the Court of Appeal, Stanton, Collins and Sawyer LJJ unanimously upheld the decisions of Hiscox J on points 1 and 3. On point two Stanton and Collins LJJ upheld the decision with Sawyer LJ dissenting on the ground that the ambit of the House of Lords decision in Fairchild could encompass the instant facts. The case now comes before the Supreme Court (Lady Dale, Lady Joyce, Lord Winston, Lord Paul and Lord Charles). The appellant is Mr Maddox, the respondent CC-UK Ltd