The claimant’s husband had been employed as an apprentice fitter in a factory which manufactured dry cleaners’ presses. For two years, it was part of his job to mix asbestos flock with water in a bucket and then apply it to the plattens of a press in order to seal them to stop the steam escaping. He was therefore mixing the asbestos as part of the process of manufacturing a product containing asbestos.
Held: The 1931 Regulations were not limited in their application so as to exclude factory processes or products using raw asbestos. The rules applied to any industrial process involving the manipulation of asbestos, and the claim succeeded. The exemption for occasional use with only little exposure. Substantial exposure to asbestos dust created a known and foreseeable risk of injury.
Disapproving Watt v Fairfield, Hale LJ said: ‘It is however very difficult to imagine a factory or workshop whose main business was producing asbestos or asbestos products to which the exemption could possibly apply, given that only certain processes, infrequently carried on, are exempted and only then if none of the other defined processes is carried on in the same factory.’
Judges:
Hale, Mantell LJJ, Cresswell J
Citations:
Times 02-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 101, [2001] ICR 1223, [2001] PIQR P19
Links:
Statutes:
Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931 (1931 No 1140)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Disapproved – Watt v Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Company Limited and Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Ltd and Energy and Marine (Weirside) Limited SCS 3-Nov-1998
The pursuer sought reparation against three former shipbuilders. He had developed extensive bilateral pleural plaques and asbestosis.
Held: Lord Gill felt that it was possible to give the proviso a satisfactory meaning, notwithstanding his . .
Cited by:
Cited – McDonald v National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc SC 22-Oct-2014
Contact visiting plants supported asbestos claim
The deceased had worked as a lorry driver regularly collecting pulverized fuel ash from a power station. On his visits he was at areas with asbestos dust. He came to die from mesothelioma. His widow now pursued his claim that the respondent had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147424