Imprimir vista previa Cerrar

Mostrando 74 resultados

Descripción archivística
Legal Working Party

Documents the foundation, by the Society of Labour Lawyers, of the ‘[SPAID] Legal Working Party’ (originally called ‘Asbestosis Working Group’) and some of its meetings 1980-1986. The brief of the working party was 'to examine the law and procedure on asbestosis claims, with particular reference to the inter-relationship between Coroners' Courts and the Pneumoconiosis Medical Panels'. The idea was to create a forum for helping Nancy Tait with research and also 'a useful tool for Parliamentary lobbying without infringing SPAID's charitable status'.

Display boards and posters
GB 249 OEDA/C/3 · Séries · 1968, 1976, c.1977-c.1999
Parte de Occupational and Environmental Diseases Association (William Ashton Tait) Archives

The following display boards have been disposed of in line with health & safety regulations of the University of Strathclyde:

  • ‘Asbestos Insulation’: contained a sample of asbestos rope and asbestos tape in a bag
  • ‘Floor Tiles’: contained vinyl-asbestos tile samples; a photograph of the board survives as part of OEDA display 'Asbestos in the environment' (OEDA/C/3/5/7)
  • ‘Walls and ceilings’: contained sample of Asbestolux ceiling panels
Fairchild judgement
GB 249 OEDA/G/4 · Séries · 1998, 2001-2003
Parte de Occupational and Environmental Diseases Association (William Ashton Tait) Archives

Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd is a leading case on causation in English tort law. It concerned malignant mesothelioma and addressed the causation issues arising if there has been exposure by two or more employers, or if there are periods of self-employment where exposure took place.

In February 2001 the High Court ruled that the widow of Arthur Fairchild, who died of mesothelioma in 1996, could not prove which employer Mr Fairchild was working for when he contracted the illness. The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in December 2001. In their judgement in May 2002 the House of Lords set aside existing causation principles and imposed liability upon each exposing employer despite the inability of the victim to demonstrate a causal link between exposure and injury.