The Supreme Court has handed down a judgment in the long awaited case of Sienkiewicz -v- Greif UK Ltd deciding in favour of asbestos victims who fell ill from low-level asbestos exposure. This is a truly significant ruling for personal injury law.
Mrs Enid Costello worked at a factory in Elsmere Port in the 1960's and 1970's. She was exposed to small amounts of asbestos generated elsewhere in the factory. She developed mesothelioma as an occupational disease from which she died in 2006.
Mrs Dianne Willmore was found to have been exposed to asbestos in the 1970's when she was a student at Bowring School near Liverpool. She died from mesothelioma in 2009, again developing as an occupational disease.
On 9 March 2011, the Supreme Court ruled on this serious injury and found in favour of the families of Mrs Costello and Mrs Willmore confirming awards of damages that had previously been agreed.
What is mesothelioma?
Mesothelioma is a devastating aggressive cancer which usually forms in the lining of the lungs (but can also form in the stomach lining) and is always fatal. Unless idiosyncratic, its only known cause is asbestos exposure and there is thought to be no "safe limit" below which there is no risk of developing mesothelioma.
When inhaled, the microscopic asbestos dust particles can cause lung diseases resulting in breathlessness and in some tragic cases, death. Within personal injury law, these asbestos related conditions have presented themselves as a serious injury occupational disease. Unlike noise induced hearing loss or other accidents at work, asbestos related conditions developing nationwide have not reached their peak.
Notably, such conditions have been contracted through service in the Armed Forces, now compensated by the 'no-fault' Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. Training accidents and accidents at work have led servicemen to be exposed to asbestos.
Asbestos exposure
There is understood to be a certain level of asbestos exposure in the environment at large, particularly in urban areas. In the Sienkiewicz case, the defendants sought to deny compensation to mesothelioma claimants who, although they were exposed negligently to asbestos, could not prove the negligent exposure had "doubled the risk" of mesothelioma. They said the claimant must prove the amount of negligent exposure was at least the same as the background environmental exposure, if not more, in order to succeed.
Fortunately, the seven law lords found unanimously for the claimant (as had 3 Court of Appeal judges before them) and said that where a claimant can prove the negligent exposure made a "material contribution" to the risk of mesothelioma, the claim will succeed. The ruling of Lord Phillips will be of fundamental importance to mesothelioma victims now and for years to come.
Asbestos victims have faced a barrage of legal attacks over the past decade since the House of Lords "Fairchild ruling" in 2002. The legal costs incurred by defendants over the past 10 years fighting asbestos victims dwarfs the amount of compensation paid many times over. It is time the insurance industry took some responsibility for the policies they wrote decades ago.
Author Resource:
Written for Hilary Meredith Solicitors by Olwyn Kinsey author of Asbestos Illness related articles.
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.look4articles.com/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.look4articles.com/images/rss.jpg "XML Feed For RSS")