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

Supreme Court confirms the standard of proof for suicide AND unlawful killing conclusions is the balance of probabilities. What does this mean for NHS organisations?

The Supreme Court has today delivered its judgment on the case of R (on the application of Maughan) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire. This decision has serious implications for NHS organisations, which are considered in more detail below.

View blog

Directors who fail to prepare, should prepare to fail

Two recent judgments demonstrate the risk that directors (of insolvent companies) face of being personally liable if appropriate records and procedures are not followed and if it cannot be shown that certain payments were in the interests of the company.

View blog

Decision making and consent

The GMC updated guidance on 'Decision making and consent' comes into effect today, on 9 November 2020, replacing the previous guidance.

View blog

TC (Urgent Medical Treatment) [2020] – authorising long term coercive treatment

The decision in TC (Urgent Medical Treatment) [2020] concerned a 69-year-old woman with advanced cancer of the larynx. An urgent application was brought on behalf of the trust to authorise a 6-8-week course of chemo-radiotherapy requiring restraint.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up