0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

apportionment and the smoker negligently exposed to asbestos

21 November 2014

In the case of Blackmore v Department for communities & Local Government (2014), the defendant admitted that they had negligently exposed the deceased to asbestos fibres during the course of his employment as a painter, causing lung cancer. But using a relative risk analysis, they sought a reduction of 85% for contributory negligence for the deceased’s smoking.

The defendant’s case was that as scientific data was available as to contribution, it was common sense to apply a scientific approach rather than a broad brush approach to this issue. The court was not persuaded for a number of reasons, underpinned by the acceptance that the disease was indivisible, so it was impossible to determine precisely what impact smoking had when compared to the impact of the exposure to asbestos on an individual cell. For the defendants to be right, every smoker exposed to asbestos ought to go on to develop lung cancer, and that simply was not the case.

Whilst causation must be considered it was not the sole guide and the defendant’s breach of specific duties had greater culpability than the claimant’s smoking when considering the evidence as a whole.

HHJ Cotter QC, provides an in depth review of the case law in this area and what is striking is that from the outset of the trial he made it clear that he would not countenance any argument that the deceased’s negligence could emasculate the defendant’s breach of duty. The claim was reduced by 30% for the deceased’s contributory negligence; the court reminding those who owe specific duties to be prepared for the consequences of failure.

related opinions

Part 36 – is a loophole about to be closed?

Part 36 offers in litigation are used tactically to make a settlement offer while simultaneously placing the other side on risk of not ‘beating’ that offer at trial.

View blog

The Debt Respite Scheme and its implications for creditors

The Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 is due to come into force on 4 May 2021. It’s a snappy title but what exactly is it?

View blog

Consultation launched on the future of subsidy control law

The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy has just launched its consultation on the future of subsidy control law (previously known as state aid) in the UK.

View blog

Chief Coroner Guidance - R (on the application of Maughan)

The Chief Coroner has helpfully published new guidance in the form of Law Sheet 6, dealing with the judgment of R (on the application of Maughan) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up