Ruling on asbestos suit highlights need for gov't framework for ...

Posted by admin on May 26, 2012 in Latest News | Comments Off

A court?s dismissal of a lawsuit by former construction workers and families of those who claim they were sickened after being exposed to asbestos at construction sites has highlighted the need for a government framework for compensation for such workers.

The Yokohama District Court on May 25 dismissed a damages suit filed by 87 people ? former construction workers and members of the bereaved families of victims of asbestos-related illnesses ? against the government and 44 construction material makers. It was one of many class actions filed by about 500 such construction workers across the country, and the first case to be ruled on by a court.

Fire- and heat-resistant asbestos, which had been imported since 1960 was used primarily as a construction material. Particles of asbestos, released if the material is cut with an electric saw, can cause lung cancer and mesothelioma in those who inhale them.

In the past rulings, courts awarded compensation to those who claimed that they were sickened after working at asbestos factories and other workplaces over a long period, recognizing the causal relationship between their exposure to the toxic material and their illnesses.

However, construction workers typically move from one construction site to another over a short period of time. If they have been exposed to asbestos at multiple sites and contracted an illness, it is difficult to specify where and when they were exposed to the fateful dose.

In its May 25 ruling, the Yokohama District Court upheld the government?s claim that the theory that asbestos can cause lung cancer and mesothelioma was established in 1972. However, it was in 1975 that the government enforced regulations on the use of asbestos, such as a ban on spraying it.

The plaintiffs argued that the government was late in enforcing asbestos regulations. However, the court concluded that the delay ?did not go beyond accepted limits and cannot be deemed as irrational.? The court also asserted that it cannot judge whether the government?s regulations on the use of asbestos in 1976 and later were appropriate because proof presented by the plaintiffs was insufficient. Furthermore, the court dismissed the plaintiffs? claim that production of materials that included asbestos, even after asbestos-related risks had been confirmed, constituted a joint unlawful act among construction materials makers.

?Questions remain over whether those other than the defendants were responsible for the plaintiffs? health damage. The plaintiffs failed to sufficiently prove that point,? the ruling said.

The ruling has given the public the impression that the court was extremely reluctant to recognize the companies? culpability for the plaintiffs? health damage, while requiring the plaintiffs to present detailed evidence to prove the causal relationship between their exposure to asbestos and their illnesses.

Still, the ruling pointed out the government?s lack of awareness of the risks involved in construction work using materials containing asbestos. Moreover, the court mentioned the unique working conditions at construction sites and said, ?If the plaintiffs have not received sufficient compensation for their health damage, the nation as a whole ? which has benefited from construction materials containing asbestos ? may be responsible for compensating them.? It thus urged the government to consider whether to improve legal regulations on asbestos and introduce a system to compensate victims.

Some of the plaintiffs in the class action suits are urging the government as well as asbestos and construction material manufacturers to set up a fund to extend relief to those sickened after exposure to the material ?so that the victims don?t have to launch damages suits.?

The number of patients with asbestos-related diseases is feared to increase as the symptoms of such illnesses appear after an often decades-long incubation period.

The government should take the latest court ruling?s view seriously and launch concrete action to create a system to compensate victims.

Article source: http://mainichi.jp/english/english/perspectives/news/20120526p2a00m0na008000c.html

milwaukee bucks bear grylls us news law school rankings gael glen rice jr bars lindzi cox