Company ordered to pay hospice care costs

Hullo Carole and Chris,
Thanks for the advice Carole - my enquiries reveal that I should need an early Christmas pressie. We're talking well over £1,000 plus vat and, at my 79 years, my kids will need all of that and a bit more to see me off...
Chris, you've hit the nail on the head - the judge was either remarkably prescient or, perhaps, the opposite. Beyond reasonable doubt ? One hopes, for the sake of quality in justice, that it was the former, but I remain agnostic. However, I hope that I haven't ruffled too many feathers, but many thanks each for your interest, and thanks again Carole for looking up the information. Regards, Peter.

P Browning - If you are really so bothered by this case i suggest you contact the
official court transcribers, Merrill Legal Solutions International, on 020 7404 1400 or at 190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG for a copy of the transcript so you can find out for yourself and perhaps take it up with the judge! A fee will be charged for this service.

OK, that makes a certain amount of sense. Does it follow then, that the evidence must have been pretty clear cut

Hullo again Chris,
Computers being what they are, each to his or her own, but mine did the link immediately this morning. Anyway, the telling phrase in the report is that ..."Judge Anthony Thornton QC, sitting at the High Court in London, ruled the hospice was entitled to "a reasonable sum from the company"... i.e. It was the Judge sitting without a jury. Regards, Peter.

Sorry that link seems to be redirected to something unrelated but thank you for the information.

I promise not to shoot anyone down - but just thought you'd like to see the report showing on the following website, which will doubtless meet with the approval of many Forum watchers, but still does not answer my central point. You'll see however that it was a ruling from the Judge rather than by a jury. Hope that's helpful. Regards, Peter -

http://www.wigantoday.net/news/national/asbestos_death_payout_for_hospice_1_1048020

Could someone confirm something for me please...

In my ignorance I am unsure whether this case was decided by a judge alone or some kind of Jury hearing.

OK I know I am going to get shot down for not knowing but it does weigh heavily on my mind that a judge's assessment might differ from that of a jury...

Hello

The evidence appears to have been overwhelming for the judge.

Barry

So, gentlemen, what would you like our Courts to become ? Places where evidence no longer matters, only the politics of smashing the bosses ?

As I said earlier, I might have chosen the wrong wicket but, for evidence in civil cases, even the "balance of probabilities" test must surely have required a reasonable degree of certainty. In this case a certainty that no other causal exposure had occurred and, frankly, I still don't know how anyone could draw that conclusion over a fifty-plus year time scale, on the fcts we know so far.

In criminal cases, we hopefully still use the test "beyond reasonable doubt" and, in health and safety cases, that test should remain. Never mind, let's forget those centuries of refinement of the judicial process and just smash the bosses anyway !

Yes, indeed, when workers knew there place, which was little houses overfull with several generations for there home, not that they were there much, as most of there time they were working in factories or down the pit to put bread on the table, and if there was enough work, meat on Sunday too.
And why did they put themselves through such toil? to feed the wealthy factory or mine owner having to live up at 'the big house' with his wife and family, nice they were too, sometimes they would send the workers on a holiday in a charabanc, you put up with the long hard graft just so the family could enjoy a day out every other year.

If a worker was to come down with some strange illness, well, they'd have to go, "Not a bloody hospital old bean!"
And the company doctor wouldn't put any blame onto the company would they? They knew who paid their wages after all.

I never said that an organisation did know, or even should know of conditions that may come from the work they gave to workers, but they should accept responsibility should the work they have given the employee to do prove to be dangerous, THAT'S a basic moral duty surely?

It is indeed a change of ethos, a bloody good one too.

Hello

It is a change of ethos.

Barry

Well done Barry, yet another endorsement of my point. Here, you bring in the entirely irrelevant bogey - PROFITS !! Apart from the absolute fact that, without profits, there would be no taxation and without taxation there would be no justice, no hospitals, no schools, no social services, just about nothing whatever of the so-called "Public Sector" which is actually made possible by somebody, somewhere, having the audacity to make a profit upon which they can pay a wage, and upon which taxation is then levied. How very easy it is for the new enlightened elite to criticise the mostly now passed world of sixty years ago, but what on earth has all that got to do with the quality of justice ?

Hello

The ethos has changed there is more transparency and honesty (and justice), there was a covering up of dangers for all sorts of problems,in all sorts of industry, we no longer send children down the pits or up chimneys safer but it has hammered the profits.

Barry

These replies simply go to underline my point - they clearly demonstrate that the ethos has changed and, nowadays, blame takes precedence over justice in the public psyche. Perhaps we might yet hear from someone who was actually a totally (yes, please, totally) independent observer throughout the trial, for I am ready to stand corrected. In the meanwhile, I mourn for Mr. Wlison, and I mourn for justice.

Without the knowledge of the medical evidence I can only make a stab in the dark-

I think you are totally missing the point!.....I would say that there was unequivocal evidence that Mr Wilson's exposure to asbestos could only have been during his employment in 1951. Had he had any hint of exposure from any other source I doubt they would have won their case. There would be NO case had they not been able to prove that link and that would have been the first thing to be established.

I dont agree that in 51 the company would have been unaware of the dangers of working with asbestos and therefore should not be punished for it now. The dangers of asbestos have been known since the 1930's and in fact in the 70's it was proved that it had been covered up. Perhaps something along those lines was used.

I am sorry you feel that the balance of the judicial process is swinging in the wrong direction. When I hear of cases like this I applaud the judicial process, for once the decision is correct. I just wish that the poor man could be alive to have enjoyed the money himself.

can i hijack this thread to ask a question please?
My ex boss runs a ground investigation company and a couple of years ago they were drilling on some land which was a known asbestos dump (no specialist clothing or anything like that - in fact i don't think he even bothered telling the drillers). they brought the samples back into the lab and there was a lot of closing of doors and scurrying about so i knew they were up to something. the junior engineer confirmed that there was asbestos in the lab and they then put it in a plastic bag, taped it up and left it in the yard next to where we parked our cars. a year later it was still there - in fact, it only disappeared when HSE investigated him for something else (still ongoing). Should i tell someone this or is it just opening a can of worms that will be the same old his word against mine scenario (the junior engineer is now dead unfortunately) it worries me that i might get sick in the future and have no comeback as all they did to clean it up was wipe the lab bench down. i only left a few weeks ago so i was in that environment for quite some time

Mr Browning...

Would you agree that it would be impossible to assess the outcome of this case without having, at least the bulk, of the evidence available to us for scrutiny?

I understand your point about risks that are not yet established; but perhaps there wa ssomething more going on here.

Carol, Craig and Phil - thanks to you all, but I think I must be of a very different generation. These days, there is ample evidence of H & S., Risk Assessment etc having become a key part of our workplace culture. A culture which requires blame and guilt for every accident.

In the fifties, the H & SE did not exist. What is also missing here is the fact that six decades ago, the risk from asbestos was barely if at all understood, and certainly not by the ordinary day to day managers of workplaces.

They should have known ? How should they have known ? With the absence of knowledge prevailing at that time, I am still prepared to ask the question - what was the nature of the proof that was certain enough to establish guilt ? How could we be certain as to what other exposures did or did not arise over five decades or more ?

I am very well aware of the awful suffering in this case, but I am trying hard to be objective about the question of "guilty or not guilty" over such a long time-scale. Here am I, sitting at the desk typing this response, but it may just be that my employer is guilty of supplying me with the wrong type of computer. I shall never know, but it seems to me very hard upon him if, because my eyesight fails in fifty years time, he should then be held accountable.

This subject is one of deep but understandable emotion which I share, but all I ask is that, in the judicial process, we try to retain that balance personified by the statue atop the Law Courts. There is plenty of evidence being generated these days to show that the scales need oiling, and that's not helped by the presumption in law of guilt beginning to take precedence over from the presumption of innocence.

Finally, please be assured that I share your concerns, and I probably chose the wrong wicket on which to bat, but I only seek to comment upon what I see as a diminishing standard of justice in the UK., and it worries me greatly, not for myself but for my children and grandchildren.

I absolutely agree that any person or organisation that knowingly puts a person in danger should be tried in a court of law should face the music, also if evidence surfaces later that shows a person suffered because of something another has done, knowingly or otherwise, they should share the costs.

This case has done just that, Mr Wilson was employed and as a result of his job contracted the disease and needed hospice care, it's only right and moral that the company should pay for that care.

If this was a company being forced to pay out a large sum of money as a form of punishment against them for not knowing something that wasn't known at the time then it would be unfair, But this is to cover costs of a dying man who had contracted a disease during his employment and needed care, 2 different things.

I fully agree Carole.

A good friend of mine passed away a year ago last week from mesothelioma - a truly terrible and very painful way to end your days.

He contracted the disease while working with asbestos in the mid 1960's - a summer job for four weeks.

What P Browning needs to understand is the point that you so well made. No Court in the land is going to find against a then-employer (or as is the case, their insurance company) if the facts are not overwhelming and stand up to stringent cross-examination and any contrary evidence submitted.

I for one am glad that succesful legal cases have offered a small modicum of comfort to the shattered lives of the victims families.

Surely we should all support the morality in this?

I am not a medical expert but my understanding of this poor mans condition is that it can only be caused by asbestos. Therefore I would think that there was enough evidence to link that back to the employer in this case.

It would be too simplistic to ask about the intervening years as I am sure this would have been one of the first investigations that would have been carried out. If he had not contracted the disease from this source then somebody else would have been standing in the dock! I suppose they are lucky that the employer is still around to be accountable.

Mr. James Wilson died, aged 76, after spending 23 days in a Hospice with a truly dreadful disease, mesothelioma. Now, fifty seven years after something that apparently happened in 1951, his then-employer is found by HH Judge Anthony Thornton QC, presiding at the RCJ, to have been accountable for his death.

One has every sympathy for Mr. Wilson and his family, but one feels entitled to ask just what amazingly dependable medical evidence was put before the Court since, during the intervening 57 years, what other events may have impinged upon his health. Time after time, forensic medical evidence has been challenged and found wanting (most recently regarding Dr.Kelly's alleged suicide) but here we have yet another example of just how easy it is these days for employers to get thrashed by the Courts because, it seems, they are guilty of being employers.