A decision in the Supreme Court today brings good news for mesothelioma victims who developed the disease as a result of relatively low levels of exposure to asbestos.
The decision relates to damages claims by two victims of the disease, one exposed to asbestos dust whilst at school, the other whilst working as a secretary in a packaging factory. Although the defendants in both cases did not deny that asbestos exposure had occurred, they appealed against compensation awarded by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that they should only be liable if responsible for causing exposure at a level which "at least doubled the risk" of developing mesothelioma in later years.
Today the seven Supreme Court justices unanimously dismissed the defendants appeals, rejecting the argument that claimants should show that their asbestos exposure doubled the risk of mesothelioma. The Court ruled that whether exposure was too insignificant to be taken into account was a matter for the trial judge based on the facts of each particular case.
Commenting on the decision, once legal expert in the field said
"This ruling is a positive step towards proper acknowledgement of the risks that asbestos can pose in schools and other public buildings, even if the amount of fibres which pupils, teachers and others come into contact with is relatively small.
The decision relates to damages claims by two victims of the disease, one exposed to asbestos dust whilst at school, the other whilst working as a secretary in a packaging factory. Although the defendants in both cases did not deny that asbestos exposure had occurred, they appealed against compensation awarded by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that they should only be liable if responsible for causing exposure at a level which "at least doubled the risk" of developing mesothelioma in later years.
Today the seven Supreme Court justices unanimously dismissed the defendants appeals, rejecting the argument that claimants should show that their asbestos exposure doubled the risk of mesothelioma. The Court ruled that whether exposure was too insignificant to be taken into account was a matter for the trial judge based on the facts of each particular case.
Commenting on the decision, once legal expert in the field said
"This ruling is a positive step towards proper acknowledgement of the risks that asbestos can pose in schools and other public buildings, even if the amount of fibres which pupils, teachers and others come into contact with is relatively small.
The risks posed by the toxic fibres have been shown to be far greater in children's lungs rather than those which are fully-developed, meaning school pupils are more susceptible to the dangers of asbestos.
We hope that this ruling - and its implications over what 'low-level' exposure can lead to - will lead to a step change in how the hazardous material's presence in schools is viewed and hopefully lead to its eventual removal from all sites."
Given that there is no known safe level of exposure to asbestos, I think this decision is a great victory for common sense. It may also help Steve's case, given our belief that he was exposed to asbestos dust whilst a student in an educational building, demolishing walls to create open plan studios to earn a bit of cash over the Christmas vacation. We wait to see what Steve's legal team thinks....
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment