The family of Anne Lawton, a former shop assistant who passed away 60 years after allegedly being exposed to asbestos, is suing Boots for £135,000. Anne Lawton, a grandmother of four, began working at the high-street chemist at the age of 15. In 2019, she was diagnosed with mesothelioma, an incurable cancer linked to asbestos exposure. She died in February 2021 before her compensation claim against Boots could be heard in the High Court.
Lawton claimed she was repeatedly exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos dust during a refurbishment of the Boots store in Hanley, Stoke, Staffordshire. Her family accuses Boots of failing to take simple and inexpensive measures to protect its employees from asbestos dust. Boots denies any breach of duty towards Mrs. Lawton and argues that there was no foreseeable risk of her contracting a deadly disease.
According to her lawyers, when Mrs. Lawton joined Boots, the store was undergoing a complete refurbishment, which included installing suspended ceilings containing asbestos. Mrs. Lawton, from Cheadle, Staffordshire, described the floors as “incredibly dusty” due to the work being done.
She recalled being instructed to sweep the floors several times a day, which resulted in dust covering her clothes. Even after the refurbishment, she continued to be exposed to harmful dust in the store’s basement, where pipes with damaged lagging were present. Mrs. Lawton left her job at Boots around 1969-70.
Simon Kilvington KC, representing her family, stated that there is no evidence Boots took any of the “cheap and simple steps” to mitigate the risk of asbestos poisoning. He noted that part of the alleged exposure occurred after a 1965 report highlighted the dangers of even “light and brief” exposure to asbestos dust.
John Williams KC, representing Boots, argued that based on the standards of the time, it was not foreseeable that Mrs. Lawton would be injured. He added that before 1965, it was believed that only “heavy and prolonged” exposure to asbestos posed a risk of deadly disease. He also mentioned that investigating pipe lagging became recommended practice only after the period in question.
The trial is ongoing.