Lindane
case
The judgement is presently awaited in a UK case
alleging that exposure to the wood preservative lindane caused aplastic anaemia,
a rare condition of the blood. The victim is alleging exposure to lindane when
his parents had their home treated with wood preservatives when he was a baby,
and is suing the timber treatment company Rentokil, who have denied liability.
The trial took place in the High Court over 8 days in January, and judgement has
been reserved. The issues to be decided will include whether lindane can cause
aplastic anaemia; and whether the company were negligent in using the product;
and whether the victim in this particular instance had any or sufficient
exposure to lindane in the crucial period before onset of the disease.
New
'no-fault liability' proposals
An idea for compensation for victims of exposure
to certain chemicals was launched at a meeting at the House of Commons on 10
January. Alan Care, of lawyers Leigh Day & Co put forward the proposals for
compensation to try and short-circuit complicated and lengthy legal procedures.
The meeting was supported by Chris Smith, MP, opposition spokesman for
environmental protection and MPs, victims, academics, lawyers and groups
concerned with pesticides issues, including the Pesticides Trust [now PAN UK].
There are instances of chemical exposure which have led to
allegations of serious adverse health effects. Some of those exposed may suffer
rare idiosyncratic reactions because of their particular individual sensitivity.
In an action for compensation, a victim has to prove exposure to the chemical,
that the chemical caused the reaction, and that the manufacturer or user was
negligent or at fault in using the chemical and should have known that the
chemical caused such reactions.
The issue that may crop up in court proceedings is that the
manufacturer may say in defence to a claim that there is no possibility of
foreseeing an idiosyncratic or hyper-sensitive reaction. The no-fault
compensation scheme aims to provide a compensation fund for victims in such
cases, subject of course to medical opinion. Victims will still have to prove
exposure and causation, but will not have to run the gauntlet in court
proceedings of proving that a manufacturer should have foreseen that some people
exposed would be exceptionally sensitive to the chemical.
Pesticides—particularly sheep dips and wood
preservatives—do cause such reactions, and litigation is a cumbersome,
lengthy, uncertain, and inappropriate. Any step to help victims to get on with
their lives is welcomed.
New
Convention on Civil Liability includes pesticides
An important new legal instrument has been
concluded—which will have consequences in signatory countries for claims for
liability following pesticide use. The Council of Europe Convention on Civil
Liability for damage resulting from activities dangerous to the environment was
opened for signing in June 1993 and will come into force as soon as it is
ratified by three countries. It should cover liability for accidents at
pesticide manufacturing processes and possibly the consequences for health and
the environment of some forms of pesticide pollution.
It aims for the quick and effective repair of environmental
damage. Damage includes personal injury and health effects, as well as costs of
remedial action for environment protection, that may result from accident or
continuous pollution. Dangerous activities include genetically modified
organisms, as well as manufacturing sites for chemicals. The liability of
operators of processes involving dangerous activities is absolute, and does not
depend on establishing that the operator was at fault. The Convention proposes a
compulsory financial security system so that operators would be insured or
bonded for such risks.
[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 23, March 1994, page 15]