Awkward medicolegal problems in asbestos-induced disease. Problems in law

Our plain-English summary of Awkward medicolegal problems in asbestos-induced disease. Problems in law, by C. Clothier (Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1978).

The study

• Author: C. Clothier
• Journal: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
• Published: 1978;71(12):922-5
• Cited by: 4 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Summary of the article

This paper, by a London barrister (QC), discussed the legal problems in claims for compensation for asbestos-induced disease, mainly asbestosis and mesothelioma. It did not report new data. The author explained that civil liability rested on fault. A claimant had to prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, that the duty was breached, and that the damage resulted from the breach. He described how the duty depended on what was known at the time. Awareness of the danger of asbestos had grown gradually, and the duty had widened to include people outside the workplace, such as wives who handled contaminated work clothes. He considered causation, judged on the balance of probabilities, the most troublesome element. Small exposures linked to mesothelioma, asbestos bodies in the lungs of ordinary people, mesothelioma without a known cause in the general population, and the combined effect of smoking in lung cancer all made causation hard to decide. He noted that courts had not treated smoking as contributory negligence and tended to favour claimants. He also discussed claimants who had worked for several employers, exposure before and after the 'date of knowledge' ('guilty' and 'innocent' dust), and employers that no longer existed. For these cases he pointed to the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930. He then discussed time limits for bringing claims, which amending Acts had eased. He concluded that the examining physician was best placed to prompt claimants to seek redress.

PubMed has no abstract for this study, and the article doesn't print one. We wrote this summary from the full article with the help of AI. It is not the authors' wording.

In plain English

This article was not a research study. It was a commentary by a barrister, Cecil Clothier QC, on legal problems in claims for compensation for asbestos-related disease in the English courts. The author explained that a claimant usually had to prove fault: that a duty of care was owed, that it was breached, and that the damage resulted from the breach. The author described causation as the hardest element. It was difficult to show which of several possible causes was probable when mesothelioma had been associated with small exposures and also occurred in the general population, or when a heavy smoker with asbestos exposure developed lung cancer. The author also discussed sharing liability among several employers, the courts' talk of 'guilty dust' and 'innocent dust', former employers that had closed, the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act, 1930, and time limits for bringing claims. The author noted that amending Acts had eased those limits and concluded that the examining physician was best placed to prompt a claimant to seek redress.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Commentary (legal opinion essay); not a research study
• Who was studied: No study population; the article discusses legal claims involving asbestosis or mesothelioma in general terms
• Exposure: Asbestos dust at work, and asbestos-related disease in wives who handled workers' contaminated clothes; smoking discussed as an added factor in lung cancer
• Main results:
  • The author stated that in most damages claims the claimant had to show fault by the person sued
  • The author argued that the employer's duty of care widened as knowledge of asbestos hazards grew
  • The author described causation as the most troublesome element; the standard of proof was the balance of probabilities
  • The author said that, given links between mesothelioma and small exposures, asbestos bodies in most people's lungs and cases with no identifiable cause, deciding probable cause was difficult
  • The author noted that courts had not treated smoking as contributory negligence, so a negligent employer might pay more to a claimant who smoked
  • The author described an inherent bias in the courts towards claimants, particularly victims of industrial disease
  • Where exposure fell both before and after the date the danger should have been known, courts tried to separate the contributions of 'guilty' and 'innocent' dust
  • Late developers of mesothelioma might find their employer had disappeared; the author pointed to an Act allowing claims directly against the insurer of a wound-up company
• The authors' conclusion: The author stated that amending Acts had corrected the injustice of time limits for insidious industrial diseases, and concluded that the examining physician was best placed to prompt a claimant to seek redress

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Asbestosis.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Mesothelioma, Defendant, Duty of Care, Causation, Asbestos Bodies, Lung Cancer, Contributory Negligence.

Related studies

• Awkward medicolegal problems in asbestos workers — A.J. Robertson (1978)
• Fund for patients with asbestos induced diseases may run out — B. Burton (2004)
• Asbestos problems yet to explode in Korea — D. Paek (2003)
• A guide to compensation for asbestos-related diseases — M.G. Britton, D.T. Hughes, et al. (1981)
• Compensation for asbestos-related diseases--the U.K. model — M. Britton (1989)
• Asbestos diseases and compensation — A. Seaton (1990)

Browse more research in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, or return to medical research.