August 2009 Case Law Reports
Dianne Willmore v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council
A local authority was held liable in negligence to the Claimant who had contracted Mesothelioma as it was likely that she had been exposed to asbestos dust from ceiling tiles in a secondary school where she was a pupil in the 1970s. The Claimant was alerted to the possibility that there may have been asbestos in the school by a newspaper article published in 2000 which indicated that asbestos was prevalent throughout the school building. Samples of the ceiling tiles had been examined in 2002 and were found to contain amosite, also known as brown asbestos. The local authority contended that in order for the Claimant to succeed, it would be necessary for her to show that she had been in a situation where she was likely to be in contact with asbestos fibres in the school with some degree of regularity.
The court held that it was more likely than not that the ceiling tiles in the school building contained brown asbestos. It was sufficient for the Claimant to show that the exposure materially contributed to the risk of her contracting Mesothelioma, Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Limited applied. The circumstances leading to the exposure were not minimal and did materially increase her risk of contracting Mesothelioma much later in life. No specific measurement of the duration of exposure was necessary to establish liability.
The local authority had admitted that it knew or ought to have known that any more than minimal exposure to asbestos dust was foreseeably hazardous. Had they been alive to the risks from disturbed asbestos they should have taken steps to prevent exposure. Damages were agreed in the gross sum of £240,000.00.
Silverlink Trains Limited v Paul Phillip Collins-Williamson
The Court of Appeal had considered it inappropriate to reverse findings of fact made by the trial Judge, who had heard the evidence and fairly relied on inferences that could be drawn from eye witnesses as to the behaviour of a passenger who fell into the gap between a platform and a train.
The railway company had appealed against the decision that it was liable in negligence for personal injuries sustained by the Claimant. The Claimant had alighted from the train and fallen into the gap between the platform and the train at sometime before the train had started, and was struck by a beam on one of the carriages. The Claimant was dragged a distance of a few metres as the train proceeded out of the station and suffered serious injury, requiring an amputation of his left leg below the knee. The Claimant was considerably under the influence of alcohol at the time.
It was held that on the balance of probabilities, the train guard was already on the platform, the Claimant had begun acting in an idiotic fashion, was unsteady on his feet and clearly intoxicated. The Judge fairly relied on the inference that could be drawn from eye witness accounts that the Claimant’s behaviour had gone on for a significant period and that the train guard was still on the platform at the time. The Judge had held that the train company were vicariously liable for the negligence of the train guard. Damages were reduced by 50% for contributory negligence.
Tim Knight v Axa Assurance
When dealing with a personal injury claim issued against the insurers of a foreign driver who had caused a road traffic accident in France, the English courts had to apply English law to assess damages. The Claimant was an Englishman domiciled in England and had been on holiday in France when he was knocked down by a vehicle driven by a French national who was insured by a French insurance company. The insurance company admitted liability and the only outstanding issues related to quantum and costs.
It was held that the insurer’s liability was for the policyholder’s tort and had nothing to do with the contractual relationship between the insured and the insurer. Accordingly the matter would be governed by English law as a matter of procedure.
Corby Group Litigation v Corby District Council
The local authority was held in breach of its duty to take reasonable care to prevent the dispersal of mud and dust containing a range of contaminates from land reclamation sites which it owned or operated. The claim related to birth defects said to have been caused by a group of children born between 1986 and 1999 consisting of shortened or missing arms, legs and fingers. It was the Claimant’s case that the birth defects had been caused as a result of the pregnant mothers’ ingestion or inhalation of harmful substances generated by the reclamation works and spreading various ways throughout many parts of Corby.
On the determination of liability to any individual Claimant, it was held that the evidence supported the conclusion of a statistically significant cluster of birth defects to children born of mothers living in Corby in the period 1989 to 1998. It was reasonably foreseeable that the local population might be exposed to hazardous or contaminated substances as a result of the land reclamation program and that pregnant mothers would inhale or ingest sufficient of the relevant contaminates that could lead to birth defects.
Terrence Charles Abraham v G Ireson and Son (Properties Limited and Stanley Reynolds (T/A Reynolds and Spademan)
The Claimant claimed damages for personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos whilst in the course of his employment with both Defendant companies. The issues were whether the Claimant was exposed to asbestos dust during the course of his employment with either Defendant and if so, the extent of his asbestos exposure, whether the exposure caused his mesothelioma, whether the exposure was negligent and whether it gave rise to a breach of any statutory duty.
It was held that the exposure was not negligent as it was unlikely that during the periods of the Claimant’s employment, his employers would have believed that he might be exposed to the risk of an asbestos related injury. Neither employer had any special degree of knowledge or personal experience which would or should have alerted them to a potential risk of exposure. Accordingly, it could not be said that either Defendant were negligent. Furthermore, it was held that neither Defendant were in breach of their statutory duties.