Re: | Page 72

Up in The effects of smoking are now well known but that was not always the case and the courts at times are asked to consider whether a claimant’s history of smoking has had any impact upon their health and in many cases, whether it has contributed towards their death. For a defendant faced with a claim for damages arising from asbestosis or other lung diseases, this is an important factor to investigate and consider when arguing for a reduction towards their financial liability. Following a recent case of Shirley Blackmore (Executrix of the Estate of Cyril Hollow, Deceased) –v- Department for Communities & Local Government (2014), the court was asked to consider the part smoking played in the Mr Hollow’s death, which had been caused by the combined effects of his smoking and exposure to asbestos. It took until 1971 for the first health warnings on cigarette packets to appear in the UK. The starting point for such considerations is Badger -v- MOD (2005), which surprisingly was the first reported case to consider whether smoking constituted contributory negligence. Contributory negligence is basically defined as one’s carelessness in looking after their own safety by failing to foresee that if they did not act like a prudent person, they might harm themselves. Once any fault has been established against the claimant, a reduction needs to be made to any recoverable damages. In Badger, the claimant was the widow of a Reginald Badger, who died of lung cancer in 2002 at 63. He had been employed by the Ministry of Defence as a boiler maker at its dockyards and during his work; he was exposed to asbestos dust and fibres, which were causative of the lung cancer that killed him. He had also smoked for the majority of his life, and this was also causative of his cancer. The Ministry of Defence admitted primary liability but sought a 25% reduction in the damages to be paid to the widow on account of her 70 late husband’s contributory negligence, as he had continued to smoke when he knew or should have known that doing so would damage his health and also, contrary to numerous warnings. If any reduction in damages was to be fair, it had to take into account the relative blameworthiness of the parties’ conduct. The court was referred to expert statistical evidence on risk before deciding upon the degree of contributory negligence attributable to Mr Badger’s continued smoking, when he should have known to stop. As an example, someone who had never smoked, with no history of asbestos exposure had a 0.3% chance of developing lung cancer. This was called the “base risk”. A long-term smoker of 20 cigarettes a day with no history of asbestos exposure had a 3% chance of developing lung cancer, being 10 times the base risk. Someone who had never smoked but had been exposed to sufficient asbestos to cause asbestosis had a 1.5% chance of developing lung cancer, being 3 times the base risk. However, by contrast, a long-term smoker of 20 cigarettes per day who had also been exposed to sufficient asbestos to cause asbestosis, had a 15% chance of developing lung cancer and was deemed to be at 30 times the base risk. That figure was derived from the base risk figures for both a long term smoker and a non smoker exposed to asbestos. Though both smoking and asbestos exposure contributed to the risk of the claimant developing lung cancer, the smoking was more causatively potent. As not all of the period of smoking was to blame for the cancer and as the defendant was significantly blameworthy in exposing Mr Badger to asbestos when its risks were known, the court ultimately assessed his contributory negligence at 20%. The damages recoverable by his widow were reduced by that amount.