By Cameron Charters
Published: 11:55 BST, 6 June 2024 | Updated: 11:56 BST, 6 June 2024
—
The grieving family of a grandmother is suing Boots, alleging that her death was caused by asbestos poisoning during her teenage employment at the store 60 years ago.
Anne Lawton began working at the high-street chemist at the age of 15 in 1957. She claimed that she was exposed to significant amounts of asbestos at her workplace in Stoke-on-Trent. In 2019, the grandmother of four from Cheadle, Staffordshire, was diagnosed with mesothelioma, an incurable cancer linked to asbestos exposure. She passed away two years later in February.
Her family is now seeking £135,000 in damages from Boots, accusing the company of failing to implement simple and inexpensive measures to protect her from asbestos dust.
!Mrs Lawton’s family are now suing Boots over her death claiming the firm failed to protect her.
However, lawyers representing Boots deny that the company breached its duty to Mrs. Lawton or that there was a foreseeable risk of her contracting a deadly disease.
According to her lawyers, Mrs. Lawton worked at the branch during a refurbishment that included installing suspended ceilings containing asbestos. Shortly before her death, Mrs. Lawton provided a statement describing how she swept floors covered in dust.
She wrote: “During the refit, the store was incredibly dusty. I was given a broom and told to sweep the floors a couple of times a day. Every floor was dusty, including the locker room, which was next to where a suspended ceiling was being fitted. I remember having to sweep the storerooms at least twice a day. I had dust all over my clothes when I did this.”
!The branch of Boots where Mrs Lawton worked in Stoke-on-Trent from 1957.
Mrs. Lawton eventually moved to work in the books department and left Boots around 1969-70.
Representing her family, barrister Simon Kilvington KC argues that there was enough asbestos in the dust she encountered to pose a foreseeable risk of injury. He also claims that if there had been exposure to asbestos, there is no evidence that Boots took any of the simple and inexpensive steps that could have reduced that risk.
Kilvington adds that part of the alleged exposure occurred after public awareness of asbestos dangers increased significantly post-1965.
On behalf of Boots, barrister John Williams KC contends that the risk of injury to Mrs. Lawton was not foreseeable based on the standards of the time. He also denies any breach of duty owed to Mrs. Lawton as an employee.
Williams notes that before 1965, it was believed that deadly diseases were only a risk with heavy and prolonged exposure to asbestos.
The trial before Judge Vikram Sachdeva KC continues.