header-logo header-logo

17 March 2011 / Jonathan De Rohan
Issue: 7457 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

No fighting back?

Are mesothelioma claims a lost cause for defendants? Jonathan de Rohan reports

Although mesothelioma is almost always caused by the inhalation of asbestos fibres there is a possibility that some cases are “idiopathic”, ie attributable to an unknown cause. Further, a significant proportion of those who contract mesothelioma have no record of occupational exposure to asbestos. The likelihood is that in their cases the disease results from the inhalation of asbestos dust in the atmosphere. The condition may be caused by the inhalation of a single fibre, a few fibres or many fibres, but the more fibres that are inhaled, the greater the risk of contracting it. Like lung cancer, it is an indivisible condition in that, once initiated, further exposure to asbestos fibres will have no causative effect. It is invariably fatal.

Rock of uncertainty

The present state of medical knowledge is such that there is no way of identifying, even on the balance of probabilities, the source of the fibre or fibres which caused a victim’s malignant tumour. This scientific ignorance

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll