Printed from the Field Fisher Waterhouse Personal Injury web site
Web address: http://personalinjury.ffw.com//news/2007/nov/settle-mesothelioma-claim.aspx

Settlement of mesothelioma claim involving disputed witness evidence

Mr G contacted us in March 2005 and his case was dealt with by Michael Osborne and Rodney Nelson-Jones. He had pleural thickening and he said that the only exposure to asbestos dust he could recall took place when he worked as a painter/decorator for Freemans Plc from 1980 until 1992 at their warehouse and offices at Clapham Road, Stockwell, London, Mr G said that he came into contact with asbestos when working in the boiler house. Before repainting them, he would brush or wipe down pipes which were lagged with asbestos. He also said that he occasionally removed partitions which contained asbestos, and which had been used to make offices.

Medical evidence was broadly agreed. The experts for the Claimant and the Defendant both stated that Mr G had bilateral pleural thickening. The Claimant’s expert assessed his asbestos disability at 40% and the Defendant’s expert at 25%.

The Defendant, however, robustly defended the Claimant’s allegation that he was exposed to significant amounts of asbestos dust. They disclosed statements from their former maintenance manager, Health and Safety Controller and maintenance supervisor. These witnesses said that they became aware of the dangers of asbestos in about 1976/77. They stated that from that date no new asbestos products were used and that if any work was required on any asbestos materials which were already in place, specialised contractors were bought in beforehand to remove or to make the materials safe. We obtained statements from four former colleagues of Mr G. They said that they remembered incidents when they came into contact with asbestos materials and that no special precautions were taken or warnings given when their work involved possible contact with asbestos.

The case was given a trial date of 29 October and was set to be decided on the issue of whether the evidence of the Claimant’s witnesses or of the Defendant’s witnesses was preferred. Counsel advised that in this situation it was impossible to predict with any certainty the outcome of the trial and that he could do no better than to say the case had a 50/50 chance of success. The claim settled 10 days before trial. The Defendant agreed to pay Mr G £50,000 in full and final settlement, which was about two-thirds of the full value of the claim.