Key Facts
- •Claim for damages by the personal representative of Maria Drinkwater's estate against the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (successor to Oxford Area Health Authority).
- •Mrs. Drinkwater, employed as a carer at Bradwell Grove Hospital (1974/5-1986), allegedly exposed to asbestos dust during refurbishment works (winter 1975/6).
- •The works involved asbestos roofing, Asbestolux boards for fire doors, and potentially asbestos lagging on pipes.
- •Claimant alleges negligence and breach of statutory duty under various Acts and Regulations.
- •Defendant denies exposure, or if any, it was de minimis.
- •Claimant relied on Mrs. Drinkwater's statement and expert evidence in respiratory medicine and occupational hygiene.
- •Defendant called no factual evidence.
- •Key dispute centered on whether Mrs. Drinkwater experienced significant asbestos exposure during the refurbishment.
- •Mrs. Drinkwater's statement contained inconsistencies and was challenged for reliability.
Legal Principles
The overall test for employer negligence is the conduct of a reasonable and prudent employer, considering worker safety based on what they know or ought to know, accounting for developing knowledge and balancing risks against precautions.
Stokes v. Guest Keen & Nettlefold [1968] 1 WLR 1776; Swanwick J
In mesothelioma cases, an employer's duty of care considers the potential maximum exposure to asbestos, even if the exact level for each employee is unknown.
Jeromson v. Shell Tankers UK Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 100; Hale LJ
Foreseeability of risk in mesothelioma claims requires considering whether a reasonable employer should have foreseen a significant risk of asbestos-related injury, accounting for developing knowledge and the absence of a safe exposure level.
Williams v. University of Birmingham [2011] EWCA Civ 1242; Aikens LJ; Bussey v. 00654701 Limited [2018] PIQR 248; Underhill LJ
In mesothelioma cases, each person who materially increased the risk of the disease is jointly and severally liable.
Sienkiewicz v. Greif (UK) Limited [2011] 2 AC 229; Lord Phillips
The burden of proof rests on the claimant to demonstrate asbestos exposure and the defendant's breach of duty; the usual standard of proof applies rigorously.
Brett v. Reading University [2007] EWCA Civ 88; Sienkiewicz [2011] 2 AC 229
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The court found insufficient evidence to establish that Mrs. Drinkwater experienced significant asbestos exposure during the refurbishment works at the hospital. While some exposure to dust was possible, the evidence could not demonstrate it was material or caused her mesothelioma given other established sources of exposure.