Document v1v2k0dLRRZjV1eZBz5nY8g7b

h :nt THE HIGH COURT Or JUST I: S3 ' ft no. :2:r OUSEN'S BENCH DIVISION (Writ issued the * ay c 1936) 3 S T W 2 iV : BETTY CONSTANCE KEMP (Widow and Afisirdscracrix of the Estate of Maurice Goeffrey Ken? deceased) Plaintif and WIGGINS TEAPE (UK) PLC and P.ZSC INTERNATZONAL PLC Firs: Defendants Second Defendants STATEMENT of claim 1. The Plaintiff is the widow and administratrix of the Estate of Maurice Geoffrey Kemp deceased and she brings this action for the benefit of herself as a dependant of the deceased pursuant to the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 as amended and for the benefit of the estate of the deceased pursuant to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934. Letters of Administration were granted to the Plaintiff out of the District Probate Registry at Oxford on lth September 19S7. 2. Setween about 19S7 and 1984 the deceased was employed by the First Defendants at premises which they occupied and were known as the Daily Telegraph Mills to which said premises the Factories Act 1961 applied. PIMNTIFFS EXHIBIT niJAa.tp 3. During the course of his said employment the deceased operated a guillotine on which the brakes vers made of asbestos. During the operation of the machine dust was SC-UK-MS-G01743 --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- ---- --.......................................................... -- WV-15581 / generated. Fort her, various pipes and toilers ir. the pi ar.t were lagged w; c.n asbestos anc part of the plant was demolished and old asbestos removed. As a result the deceased during the course o f his said employment with- the "irs: Defendants was exposed to asbestos and asbestos dust. 4. Bewser. about 1S49 and 196' tne deceased was employed by the Secona Defendants at premises which they occupied and were known as the London ?aper Hills at Dartford in the County of Kent to which said premises the Factories Acts 1937 - 1961 applied. 5. During the course of his said employment with the Second Defendants the deceased came into contact with asbestos and asbestos dust. At the mills products called Cotton Asbestos Dry Felts were manufactured. They were used to prevent fire as paper was dried over high pressure steam filled chambers. The felts ran over revolving cylinders and the dust was generated by the movement. Dust collected in the machinery ar.d was cleared out weekly using a hand Drusn and the deceased engaged in this cask frequently. He worked mainly as a Callendar man and later as a guillotine operator. The brakes of the guillotine were lined with asbestos. Whilst he was working at the said Hills an old building was demolished while machinery within it was still working and asbestos dust was generated. Pipes in the plant were lagged with asbestos wr.ich was in poor condition in that it flaked and released dust. SC-UK-MS-001744 c. As a result cf exposure -_c asbestos as aforesaid one deceased wno was born on 35 :h December 1921 suffered injuries, less and damage during his lifetime. As a result of ms said injuries he died on 4cn August 1986, me cause cf death being mesatneiicma due to exposure to asbestos. PARTICULARS Of INJURIES In about August 1984 me deceased complained to nis General Practitioner of shortness of breath. X-rays showed a right pleural diffusion. Aspiration of the ngh pleural diffusion was carried out on several occasions during 1984. A pleural biopsy showed appearances compatible with mesatheiioma. The deceased in 1988 was treated with oxygen at home. Ke was depressed and breathless. Ke could not carry out his gardening. His illness progressed until he died at home on 4th August 1986. PARTICULARS OF LOSS DURING IKE LIFETIME Or THE DECEASED Details will be provide on Discovery, 7. The said injuries and loss and the death cf one deceased were caused by the negligence and/or breach of statutory duty cf the First and/or Second Defendants. PARTICULARS OF BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY OF THE FIRST DEFENDANTS (a) Failed to make effective and suitable p ovisicn for securing and maintaining by the circulation of fresh air in each work room the adequate ventilation of the room and for rendering harmless so far as practicable al 1 dust ........ .a-- SC-UK-MS-001745 MAW--ll I { { .,^^ V generated in :r. course of one prccesseS'.cr work carried on on one said factory, negligently and contrary to Section 4 of one factories Act 1951; (0) railed to make and keep safe one deceased's place ot wcr:< m :ha: he vas exposed oo ssoesros duso therein, negligently and oono ary Section 29 (1) of the factories Aco 19S1 (c} failed to take all practicable measures oo protect one deceased against inhai toon of asbestos dust or to prevent iz accumulating in any work room and/or failed to pro vide or maintain exhaust appliances as near as possible to one point of origin of the asbestos dust so as to prevent it entering the air of any work room, negligently and contrary to Section 53 (1) of the Factories Act 1961; PARTICULARS OF BF.IACH 0? STATUTORY DUTY Of THE SECOND DEFENDANTS <d) The Plaintiff repeats against these Defendants the allegations hereinbefore made of breach of statutory duty against the First Defendants. She further says that tne Second defendants were in breach of Sections 4 and 47 of zne Factories Act 1937 and Section 5 of the Factories Act 1959. PARTICULARS 0? NEGLIGENCE Or BOTH DEFENDANTS (e) The Plaintiff repeats against both Defendants the allegations of breach of statutory duty hereinbefore made; SC-UK-MS-001746 ........ . ...... p....... i................... ** * I* e yTTri`i`^`^*-rf-Mj_Max'_ 4 t) Failed to provide suitable masks ard/cr Hespirators and/or protective clothing ar.d/cr o:^er means to prevent tne beceasec ir.r.alir:;; dust; (g) Operated an unsafe system of work in tr.a: the deceased was liable to and did come into contact with asbestos dust; (n) Failed adequately or at all to warn tre deceased of suffering injury from the inhalation of dust; (i) Caused or permitted the asbestos dust to accumulate and remain in the said premises. (j) railed to remove asbestos from the said premises. Ck) Failed to supervise the work in the < j premises so as to ensure that there was V exposure to and inhalation of asbestos dust; In the premises failed to have ary or any adequate regard for the safety of the deceased and exposed him unnecessarily to tna risk of injury. 8. Particulars pursuant to the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 as amended are as follows: (a) The person for whose benefit this action is brought is the Plaintiff Betty Constance Kemp the widow of the deceased who is now aged 63. (b) The nature of the claim is as follows:- (i) The Plaintiff claims damages for bereavement; SC-UK-MS-001747 ...... V (:i) Funeral expenses 1,000. (Ill) Loss of dependency, tne Plaintiff and the deceased peeled their income. Full particulars of dependency will be given m due course. When he was fit the deceased carried out gardening and other household work the benefit of which has been lost the Plaintiff by his illness and death. AND the Plaintiff claims (1] DAMAGES for herself as & dependant of the deceased pursuant to the Fatal Accidents Act 1976; (2) DAMAGES for the benefit of the es tate of the deceased pursuant to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934; (3) Interest oh the aforesaid damages pursuant to Section 35A of the Supreme Court A.cc 1981. JOHN FCV served t.he day -2'7d- of 3Uj 1988 by ROBIN THOMPSON 4 PARTNERS of Wentworth House, Eastern Avenue, Gants Kill, Ilford* Essex. IG2 6NH. Solicitor for the Plaintiff. SC-UK-MS-001748