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

Forgotten your password?

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

Flexible working, childcare and indirect sex discrimination – important reminder

The courts have long recognised that, on a societal level, women bear a greater burden of childcare responsibilities than men which can make it more difficult for women to comply with employer requirements for flexible working (known as the ‘childcare disparity’).

View blog

Insolvency applicants: getting the basics right

A number of interesting developments have emerged from what was quite a run-of-the-mill insolvency application brought by a litigation funder assignee.

View blog

School not liable for reckless actions of a student

The decision reinforces that the standard of the duty of care owed by schools is one or reasonableness.

View blog

Moratoriums

The new Part A1 moratorium was introduced partly in response to the Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on businesses. The moratorium is not intended to be used to simply delay the inevitable insolvency of a company, but rather to allow breathing space for that company to restructure and/or achieve an effective rescue.

View blog

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up