BERNARD DIXON, ETC., ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 536 September Term, 2011 Plaintiffs expert [Dr Welch] on causation asserted: “every exposure to asbestos is a substantial contributing cause and so brake exposure would be a substantial cause even if [the plaintiff] had other exposures.” On cross-examination, Dr. Welch further explained her opinion that every exposure to asbestos is a “substantial contributing cause” of mesothelioma. The judgment analyses this as follows: Where the question of causation is probabilistic: “substantiality” and “responsibility” necessarily imply some test of magnitude, viz., how much must exposure have increased one’s risk of harm in order to hold the responsible party liable? “substantiality” is essentially a burden of proof For reasons we need not explore in detail, it is not prudent to set a singular minimum “relative risk” value as a legal standard.  The judgment refers to the problem, namely, th

“The health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (often termed ‘fracking’) as a means to extract shale gas can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation. “ Evidence from: http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/shale-gas/2012-06-28-Shale-gas.pdf The report emphasises the need to study baseline conditions before fracking work begins. That way, changes in dissolved methane and other contaminants in ground water, aquifers and streams can be discovered with greater confidence. Induced seismic activity should be continuously monitored and used to slow down or relocate underground injection. Waste water handling is a key issue – regulators must be satisfied that the proposed controls will cope. Long term liabilities are possible: disused wells could provide a conduit for contamination. The conclusions are generic, but were develope

liquids-from-e-cigarettes-can-be-detrimental-to-health The German risk advisory service, BfR, has been assessing what’s in the typical e-cigarette. The analysis is preliminary and precautionary in nature. Besides nicotine inhalation (which users seem to accept as a risk) there are potential problems with: direct contact with the nicotine solution; dependency leading to tobacco use; potential health effects from unknown gimmick ingredients such as menthol, and poisoning of by-standers. “The BfR therefore recommends that e-cigarettes should be treated like conventional cigarettes in non-smoking areas and that e-smoking is banned in such zones.” The recommendation from us would be that companies review their smoking policy. Of particular concern is that there is an argument put forward that use of these aerosol devices helps people to quit tobacco smoking. Therefore, the story continues, they should be permitted in the workplace. This argument has not been accepted by me

Evidence of causal association and mechanism has been slowly gathering since the late 1980s. The International Agency for Research into Cancer (IARC) has now published a position statement. Their conclusion: diesel exhaust is carcinogenic to humans.  http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/pdfs/S1470204512702802.pdf  Estimates for the UK indicate that up to 1000 lung cancers and around 100 bladder cancer cases each year could be a result of occupational exposure. There are no diesel exhaust exposure standards in the UK but standards exist in the USA and it is likely that these are regularly exceeded in some kinds of work. Perhaps it would be a good time to undertake a thorough review of liability exposure and the barriers to liability exposure. The next issue of the Radar journal will begin that process. Evidence from: Lancet June 15, (2012) DOI:10.1016/S1470- 2045(12)70280-2 and DT Silverman et al. J Natl Cancer Inst (2012) Vol.104 p 1–14

An association between night shift work and breast cancer risk has been found. Many of the known risk factors for breast cancer were corrected for in obtaining this result. Although causation is not illuminated by this study, there are authoritative bodies that have concluded that night shift work is probably carcinogenic to humans. While causation probability may still be very low, it is possible to estimate the liability exposure should causation be established and assuming this research is approximately representative of shift work more generally.  Evidence from:  J Hansen et al. Occup Environ Med (2012). doi:10.1136/oemed-2011-100240 Nested case-control study of night shift work and breast cancer risk among women in the Danish military At a meeting on the 12th June (2012), subscribers to the Radar service will be advised as to the number of credible liability cases per year and the industry sectors potentially most affected in the UK. While there are no specific duty of care standa

This quote is pretty telling: ‘Competition in this market does not appear to work well for drivers. We believe the focus that insurers have on gaining the competitive edge through raising their rivals’ costs means that drivers pay more than they need to for their motor insurance policies’.  From John Fingleton. CE OFT http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2012/44-12 This idea was also the main thrust of the introduction of my Lyons Davidson presentation in April this year. OFT have now realised that the reason it happens are structural rather than a result of collective action, but blaming insurers is compulsory in press statements these days. It is true that insurers gain more competitive advantage out of cost loading their competitors than they do out of being good insurers. A brief familiarity with economics leads to that conclusion. Compulsory 3rd party insurance has to develop that way if utility is to be optimised. It is inevitable and requires no collect

Several researchers have provided data on this question. These sources have been summarised by C La Vecchia and P Boffetta  and published in European Journal of Cancer Prevention (2012) Vol. 21(3) p 227-230. There is evidence from different sources that risk of mesothelioma is decided by the age of 30 in highly exposed workers. Exposure after that age doesn’t make a measurable difference to risk. Further exposure is harmless as far as mesothelioma is concerned. Popular orthodoxy would say this conclusion couldn’t be true but would proponents of such orthodoxy have measurable proof? La Vecchia and Boffetta didn’t find any. The result could become influential in the debate following the recent triggers ligation (Durham v BAI (run-off) etc). In this, it was found that injury-in-fact occurred at exactly 5 years prior to diagnosis. The temptation is to say, if already injured then further exposure is harmless. If so then causation policies in the preceding 5 years would no

Many insurers and HSE have been advised by Professor Tom Cox on the subject of stress at work. He has been a leading light behind the development of insight, guidance and standards in this field. He is soon to retire from his main post in Nottingham, but will be following two new ones! http://proftcox.wordpress.com/