Employers face knowledge burden

The claimant was the wife of a boilermaker who worked at the defendant's shipyard between 1961 and 1965 where he was exposed to asbestos dust, which he would bring home on his work clothes. As a result, the claimant was also exposed to asbestos dust and developed mesothelioma in 2000.

While the defendant accepted that it was at fault for exposing the husband to asbestos, it denied any duty to the claimant on the basis that, at this time, it was not foreseeable to the reasonably prudent employer that there was a risk from such secondary and relatively light exposure. Knowledge of mesothelioma itself did not generally emerge until after 1965.

The defendant was found liable, as it ought to have foreseen the risk of some pulmonary disease from secondary exposure even if it could not foresee a particular risk of mesothelioma. The dangers of asbestos were sufficiently well-known and sufficiently uncertain in their extent and effect for employers to reduce exposure to the greatest extent possible.

This decision contrasts with an earlier secondary exposure claim of Gunn v Wallsend Slipway & Engineering Co (1988). In that case, the defendant was found not liable as it could not have foreseen the risks of mesothelioma to an employee's wife who was exposed to asbestos dust up to the end of 1965.

COMMENT: This judgement demonstrates an increasing tendency of courts retrospectively to burden employers with a greater degree of knowledge regarding the dangers of asbestos, so making claims even more difficult to defend. - Helen Weston, BLM London.