Key Facts
- •Claim for damages arising from mesothelioma death of Derek Cuthbert on 5 April 2022.
- •Claim brought by deceased's widow as executrix of his estate.
- •Alleged asbestos exposure during deceased's employment with Taylor Woodrow between 1956 and 1959 at Queenswood School.
- •Claim based on common law negligence.
- •Defendant unable to confirm employment details due to missing records and company dissolution.
- •Deceased's exposure primarily from supervising carpenters cutting Asbestolux boards and sweeping up dust.
- •No protective equipment provided.
- •Central issues: extent of exposure and whether it constituted a breach of duty.
- •Deceased's evidence relied upon, but its reliability questioned due to inconsistencies and time elapsed.
- •Expert evidence from occupational hygienists presented conflicting initial findings, later converging on a low exposure level.
- •Literature review focusing on knowledge of asbestos risks in the late 1950s.
Legal Principles
Common law negligence.
None specified directly, but implied throughout the judgment.
Duty of care of a reasonable and prudent employer based on knowledge (actual or constructive) of risks.
Stokes v Guest, Keen and Nettlefold [1968] 1 WLR 1776; Thompson v Smiths Shiprepairers [1984] QB 405
Recognised and established practice is relevant but not the sole test for negligence; foreseeability must be judged by the standards of the time, not with hindsight.
Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Limited [2011] UKSC 17
Even low-level asbestos exposure should have triggered precautions if the employer knew or ought to have known of the risk, especially given absence of knowledge of safe exposure levels.
Hawkes v Warmex Limited [2018] EWHC 205; Jeromson [2001] EWCA Civ 101; Owen v IMI Yorkshire Copper Tube
Degree of exposure is relevant to foreseeability of risk.
Jeromson [2001] EWCA Civ 101
Outcomes
Judgment for the defendant.
The court found that the deceased's exposure to asbestos was low, light, and intermittent, and that a reasonable employer in the late 1950s could not have foreseen a significant risk of injury at that level of exposure. Therefore, there was no breach of duty.