header-logo header-logo

19 March 2009 / Andrew Buchan
Issue: 7361 / Categories: Features , Personal injury , Employment
printer mail-detail

The knowledge question

Will employers pay the price for passive smoking in the workplace? Andrew Buchan reports

* * * * * *

The first studies into injury caused by passive smoking date back to 1982 and involve the link between smoking and cancer for non-smokers living with a smoker. These showed an increased risk to health and were followed by obfuscation and denials of the link by the tobacco industry.

In 1993 the US Environmental Protection Agency published a comprehensive report in which, having reviewed 30 epidemiological studies, found a positive association of passive smoking and lung cancer and classified environmental tobacco smoke as a known human carcinogen. In 1994 air hostesses in Florida were allowed to bring an action against the Phillip Morris tobacco companies for “second-hand smoke”. This case is reported to have settled for £300m in 1996.

Second-hand smoke

A 1997 BMJ editorial entitled “Passive Smoking: History Repeats Itself” sets out the advice from the Royal College of Physicians going back to 1962 warning of the risks associated with passive smoking. The

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll