|
|
 |
ASBESTOS RESPIRATORY DISEASES - FORESEEABILITY OF RISK OF HARM [Factory and Workshops Act 1901s.79; Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931 (SI 1931 1140) Reg.2] S appealed against finding that it was liable in negligence for the deaths of two former employees, J and D, who had contracted mesothelioma following prolonged exposure to asbestos. C, who had employed D for a period of four years prior to his employment with S, appealed against the finding that it was in breach of its statutory duty, pursuant to the Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931 Reg.2, to provide an exhaust draught to suppress asbestos dust. It was submitted that (1) S had not acted negligently in failing to take precautions to protect J and D, and (2) C was not in breach of the Regulations since they applied only to the "asbestos industry" and C's use of asbestos had been merely incidentals to its business.
Held, dismissing the appeals, that (1) that trial judge had been entitled to conclude that the risks of flowing from exposure to asbestos had been sufficiently foreseeable at the relevant time, such that S should have taken appropriate precaution, and (2) it was clear from the Factory and Workshop Act 1901 s.79 under which the Regulations were made, that the Regulations were intended to apply to any factory or workshop where a process involving the manipulation of asbestos was used, and there was no reason not to attribute a natural and ordinary meaning to the words used in that section.
Banks v. Woodhall Duckham Ltd (No 1) (Unreported, November 30, 1995), [1996] C.L.Y 2990 considered.
Further, C was not exempt from the Regulations, as D's involvement in the manipulation of the asbestos could not be described as "occasional". Correctly construed, "occasional" was something which occurred casually or intermittently and regular work could not be described as such.
SHELL TANKERS UK LTD v. JEROMSON: CHERRY TREE MACHINE CO LTD v. DAWSON; SHELL TANKERS UK LTD v. DAWSON [2001] EWCA Civ 101, The Times, March 2, 2001, Hale, L.J.CA "Current Law" March 2001
|
 |
Relevant material PLEURAL PLAQUES - LATEST NEWS ASBESTOSIS & MESOTHELIOMA COMPENSATION: STEP BY STEP GUIDE What is asbestosis? Asbestos claim viability Mesothelioma Asbestos dust risk to wives Asbestos compensation ASBESTOSIS: PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS: LIMITATION [TIME BAR] PERIODS MESOTHELIOMA CLAIM : CASE STUDY DEFENDANT EMPLOYER FOUND LIABLE AFTER 8 HOURS EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS 38 YEARS AGO Asbestos victims win right to damages Asbestos RSA and Lloyds face millions in asbestos payments NEGLIGENCE - DAMAGES - PERSONAL INJURY Law lords ruling leaves insurers facing huge claims over asbestos-related cancer Engineering group sues Royal & Sun over asbestos Malignant mesothelioma - interim payments - co-defendants - no need to establish liability of individual defendant THORN -v- DATADEEP LIMITED MESOTHELIOMA £120,000 Penalty for Asbestosis Risk Daughter continues asbestosis victim's fight £200,000 FOR ENGINEER IN ASBESTOS TRAUMA ASBESTOS RESPIRATORY DISEASES - FORESEEABILITY OF RISK OF HARM Each year more than 4,500 people die from asbestos-related diseases What is asbestos and where does it come from? Asbestos toll has not hit its peak Health and safety - negligence - personal |
||
 |
|
Click here for
information about the work we do for commercial clients. © Copyright Humphreys & Co., solicitors
|