Pinder v Cape Plc

Pinder v Cape Plc

Cape PLC did not owe Mr. Pinder a duty of care in the 1950s as a child playing on the council tip after asbestos waste had been deposited. He was not within a category of person Cape ought reasonably to have had in mind, and by the standards of the 1950s, he was not exposed to a level of asbestos dust reasonably foreseen as causing injury.

Parties
Claimant: Mr. John Pinder; Defendant: Cape PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Tort / Judgment After Expedited Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligence, Asbestos Exposure, Causation, Foreseeability
Tort Law Personal Injury Duty of Care Negligence Asbestos Exposure Causation Foreseeability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. John Pinder

Claimant

Cape PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Tort / Judgment After Expedited Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Cape PLC owed a duty of care to Mr. Pinder as a child playing on a council tip after asbestos waste had been deposited
  2. 2 Whether Cape PLC breached any such duty in the 1950s by the standards of the time
  3. 3 Whether Mr. Pinder's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos from Cape's factory

Ratio Decidendi

Cape PLC did not owe Mr. Pinder a duty of care in the 1950s as a child playing on the council tip after asbestos waste had been deposited. He was not within a category of person Cape ought reasonably to have had in mind, and by the standards of the 1950s, he was not exposed to a level of asbestos dust reasonably foreseen as causing injury.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed