scispace - formally typeset
Journal ArticleDOI

Dust on the Streets and Liability for Environmental Cancers

Jenny Steele, +1 more
- 01 Mar 1997 - 
- Vol. 60, Iss: 2, pp 265-275
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
Margereson v J.W. Roberts as mentioned in this paper was the first case of the third wave of environmental asbestos cases to reach the English courts, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant company's appeals from a finding of liability.
Abstract
In Margereson v J. W. Roberts Ltd and Hancock v J. W. Roberts Ltd,' the Court of Appeal was faced for the first time with the task of delineating the liability of a manufacturing company for environmental cancers caused by emissions from their plant. Both plaintiffs2 had lived near the former J.W. Roberts asbestos factory in Armley, Leeds, and had contracted the fatal cancer mesothelioma, the only known cause of which is exposure to asbestos. The J.W. Roberts factory, which closed in 1958, was part of the manufacturing empire of Turner & Newall Ltd (now T&N plc, the effective defendants). The incidence of asbestos-related disease was originally confined to the asbestos textile industry,3 the so-called first wave4 of asbestos-related disease, but as asbestos found more and more industrial applications, so other occupational groups5 (the second wave) began to experience the toll of death and disease. Such cases have generated a substantial number of compensation claims in tort by injured workers and their dependants.6 The Margereson and Hancock cases are unique in that they are the first examples of the third wave of environmental asbestos cases to reach the English courts.7 In the event, the Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant company's appeals from a finding of liability. In doing so, the Court interpreted Holland J's decision at

read more

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Establishing a Governmental Duty of Care for Climate Change Mitigation: Will Urgenda Turn the Tide?

TL;DR: The recent landmark decision in Urgenda Foundation v. Government of the Netherlands (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment) breaks with this tradition and raises important questions about the future of climate change liability litigation, the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature and the effect of litigation on international climate change negotiation and cooperation as mentioned in this paper.

Liability for Asbestos-Related Injuries

F. Sobczak
TL;DR: The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review that features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers.
Journal ArticleDOI

The Sources and Challenges of Norm Generation in Tort Law

TL;DR: In this paper, the capacity and legitimacy of courts to set standards in high technical or scientific complexity, including risk regulation, is examined. But the authors focus on the role of the courts in this process.
Journal ArticleDOI

Non-Contractual Liability as an Instrument for Regulating Nano and New Technologies – A Thorough Review Using National and European Union Tort Law

TL;DR: In this article, the suitability of non-contractual liability, as a regulatory instrument to deal with potential harm/damage that may be caused by engineered non-biodegradable/insoluble free nanoparticles, nanomaterials and products incorporating them, in a European context is examined.
Journal ArticleDOI

Calculations of risk: regulation and responsibility for asbestos in social housing.

TL;DR: The degree to which official health and safety regulation can safeguard maintenance and other workers in council homes is explored, and the notion of risk as an objective, scientific, and effective measure is challenged.
Related Papers (5)