Asbestos case raises issues

Richardson v G F Russell (Queen's Bench Division - 6 August 2008)

The deceased died of mesothelioma. He worked as a plumber and heating engineer for the defendant between 1975 and 1987. The issues were whether or not the deceased had been exposed to asbestos by the defendant as alleged and, if so, if that exposure was in breach of duty and made a material contribution to the cause of the disease.

The deceased had not provided a witness statement but his son and wife gave evidence that, upon diagnosis, he told them that he had been exposed to asbestos by three employers including the defendant. Exposure occurred when the deceased installed central heating: he ripped out asbestos lagged pipes and boilers; chipped off lagging to perform maintenance; removed asbestos based bath panels; and swept up asbestos waste. Prior to diagnosis, he expressed concern when watching TV programmes about asbestos on account of his past work.

At trial, the defendant disputed exposure, except for the very occasional cutting of flue pipes, while evidence from a consultant engineer supported that denial.

The judge found the claimant's witnesses to be straightforward and honest. The defendant's witnesses were found to be 'defensive' and 'in denial' about asbestos exposure at work. The exposure was significant, so could not be considered to be de minimis. The claimant's evidence on date of knowledge was 'unhesitatingly' accepted and exposure occurred negligently.

Comment

This case reflects the difficulties that defendants face when seeking to deny asbestos exposure in occupations where asbestos was historically commonplace. It is consistent with the trend seen in Cox v Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) (2007), where the deceased gave a generic description of work in power stations rather than specifically alleging exposure with a named employer, though the court was entitled to find that significant exposure had occurred. - Barbara Hatton, BLM London.


- These law reports are contributed by national law firm Berrymans Lace Mawer (www.blm-law.com).

  • LinkedIn  
  • Save this article
  • Print this page  

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have an Insurance Post account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an indvidual account here: