Hennon & Ors v. Cape Building Products Ltd & Ors [2006] ScotCS CSOH_26 (10 February 2006)

Hennon & Ors v. Cape Building Products Ltd & Ors [2006] ScotCS CSOH_26 (10 February 2006)

The manufacturer did not owe a duty of care to the deceased because there was no foreseeability of injury or proximity between the manufacturer and the deceased. The harm resulted from intervening acts of the employers and employee, over which the manufacturer had no control, and there were no averments that any advice or warning would have been followed. The deceased was not within the class of persons closely and directly affected by the manufacturer's acts or omissions.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_26
Parties
Pursuers: James Hennon and Others; Defenders: Cape Building Products Ltd and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (delict/negligence) / Procedure Roll Hearing on Relevancy (plea in Law)
Outcome
Action dismissed as against the first defenders (manufacturer).
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligence, Foreseeability, Proximity, Causation, Manufacturer's Liability, Secondary Exposure to Asbestos
Tort/delict Product Liability Personal Injury Duty of Care Negligence Foreseeability Proximity Causation +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Hennon and Others

Pursuers

Cape Building Products Ltd and Others

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil (delict/negligence) / Procedure Roll Hearing on Relevancy (plea in Law)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a manufacturer of asbestos products owed a duty of care to the spouse of an employee exposed to asbestos dust brought home from work
  2. 2 Whether foreseeability and proximity existed between the manufacturer and the deceased
  3. 3 Whether causation was established in the absence of averments that advice would have been followed by employers

Ratio Decidendi

The manufacturer did not owe a duty of care to the deceased because there was no foreseeability of injury or proximity between the manufacturer and the deceased. The harm resulted from intervening acts of the employers and employee, over which the manufacturer had no control, and there were no averments that any advice or warning would have been followed. The deceased was not within the class of persons closely and directly affected by the manufacturer's acts or omissions.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed as against the first defenders (manufacturer).

Orders

  • Sustain the third plea-in-law for the first defenders.
  • Dismiss the action so far as directed against the first defenders.