The following PI & Clinical Negligence guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
A claimant who has developed disease as a result of exposure to asbestos needs to prove:
a duty of care and/or a statutory duty on the part of the individual/company that exposed them to asbestos. The duty is to take reasonable care to ensure that a person was not exposed to a foreseeable risk of asbestos-related injury. In the case of Asmussen the claim was dismissed as on the prevailing standards and general knowledge regarding the dangers of exposure to asbestos of the time, it could not be said that the risk of injury ought to have been foreseen. See Practice Note: Asbestos—the duty of care
a breach of the duty of care and/or the statutory duty (this will, in turn, involve issues as to whether it was reasonably foreseeable, at the time of the exposure to asbestos, that such exposure might lead to the development of disease and that the defendant failed to take all reasonably practicable steps to reduce the risk). Official guidance on asbestos levels such as HM Factory Inspectorate’s 1970 publication, Technical Data Note 13 may be a relevant consideration but is not a universal test of foreseeability. Thus, the case of Bussey can be seen as rejecting the notion that, even in claims which pre-dated publication of Technical Data Note
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Take a free trial
0330 161 1234