When, 60 years after exposure, the case against the construction company was just not strong enough
What happened?
A man worked for Taylor Woodrow Construction Holdings, a construction company, between 1956 and 1959. The man died from mesothelioma in 2022, and his wife brought a negligence claim against his former employer after his death.
She claimed that the company had breached its duty of care to her late husband, saying that during this period of employment he was exposed to asbestos dust and fibres.
Following his diagnosis, the man stated that his job entailed overseeing carpenters cutting asbestos sheets for a few hours every day and sweeping up after them. He said he would get covered in dust and was not provided with PPE.
At the time the negligence claim was brought, the construction company was no longer in business and had no records of work in the 1950s to determine the deceased’s role.
The judge had to decide on whether the extent, degree and frequency of the deceased’s exposure to asbestos dust amounted to a breach of duty by the defendant. Importantly, he also had to consider what was then known about the health risks posed by asbestos.
If the man was a supervisor, it was ruled to be unlikely that he spent a few hours a day standing around them, and also unlikely that the carpenters would have spent two or three years cutting asbestos sheets for the project. Also, sweeping up afterwards would only have occupied a small portion of his day. Building sites were dusty environments and just because his clothing was covered in it every day did not mean it would all have been asbestos dust.
It was known in the mid-to-late 1950s that asbestos dust was dangerous, but this was only in the context of exposure to significant amounts.
Legal Outcome
In the March 2023 court case, the judge ruled that it was likely that the man had only sporadic contact with the asbestos cutters and his exposure while employed by the defendant was low and intermittent.
The judge also ruled that a reasonable employer, at the time, could not have foreseen that there was a significant risk of injury from exposure at the level to which the man was subjected. There was then no ‘safe’ level then but, even in 1970, the set permissible level far exceeded those to which he was exposed.
The judge ruled that Taylor Woodrow Construction Holdings had not breached its duty of care, and dismissed the claim.
What can we learn from what happened?
These cases are always really interesting because of their historical context, and it is a common situation for many people given the latent nature of health impact.
In this case, there was just too much uncertainty about the level of asbestos the man was exposed to, little was known in the 1950s about risks associated with asbestos, and certainly the law was nothing as robust as it is now. Very sad, but very common.
Source of Information
IOSH Magazine