GIBSON AND OTHERS AGAINST BABCOCK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [2018] ScotCS CSOH_78 (25 July 2018)

GIBSON AND OTHERS AGAINST BABCOCK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [2018] ScotCS CSOH_78 (25 July 2018)

The court found that, on the balance of probabilities, the deceased was exposed to asbestos dust brought home on her husband's work clothes during his employment with the defenders, and that such exposure materially increased her risk of developing mesothelioma. The defenders, as a large employer, ought to have been aware of the risk of secondary exposure by at least 1965 and failed to take reasonable precautions. The evidence, though circumstantial and partly hearsay, was sufficient given the historical context and the Fairchild exception.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSOH_78
Parties
Pursuers: Kay Gibson and Others; Defenders: Babcock International Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (mesothelioma Claim) / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Liability established in favour of the pursuers
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Secondary Exposure to Asbestos, Mesothelioma, Burden of Proof, Causation, Historical Evidence, Negligence
Tort Personal Injury Occupational Health and Safety Employer's Liability Secondary Exposure to Asbestos Mesothelioma Burden of Proof 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kay Gibson and Others

Pursuers

Babcock International Limited

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury (mesothelioma Claim) / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased was exposed to asbestos dust brought home on her husband's work clothes due to the defenders' negligence
  2. 2 Whether such exposure materially increased the risk of mesothelioma
  3. 3 Whether the defenders ought to have been aware of the risk of secondary exposure during the relevant period

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, on the balance of probabilities, the deceased was exposed to asbestos dust brought home on her husband's work clothes during his employment with the defenders, and that such exposure materially increased her risk of developing mesothelioma. The defenders, as a large employer, ought to have been aware of the risk of secondary exposure by at least 1965 and failed to take reasonable precautions. The evidence, though circumstantial and partly hearsay, was sufficient given the historical context and the Fairchild exception.

Court Disposition

Liability established in favour of the pursuers

Orders

  • Defenders found liable to the pursuers for damages (quantum agreed by joint minute)