Circumstances of claim
Patricia’s husband worked in farming from the 1970’s onwards. His employers asked him to use a number of pesticides in the course of his work. The pesticides included Glyphosate. His employers gave him no personal protective equipment to guard against the risk of exposure to harmful agents in the pesticides. As a result, he developed non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL). He died as a result.
What is NHL?
It is a blood cancer that forms tumours in the lymphatic system. Approximately 14,000 people each year are diagnosed with NHL. It is the sixth most common type of cancer in adults.
Is Glyphosate dangerous?
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified Glyphosate as carcinogenic to human beings.
How we are helping Patricia
We have notified a claim to the insurers of her husband’s employer. We have instructed an Opinion from a Haematologist regarding the link between Glyphosate and NHL. Because her husband’s work spanned from the 1970’s to 2000 and beyond, a number of Regulations apply. In particular:-
- The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH); and
- The Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations (PPE).
We believe Glyphosate was a hazardous substance within the meaning of COSHH. Consequently, her husband’s employer had a duty to provide her husband with PPE to avoid contact with Glyphosate. The liabilities under the Regulations are absolute. Consequently, a failure to comply with the Regulations results in liability to pay compensation.
We are also instructing an Opinion from a Health and Safety expert about the state of knowledge of agricultural employers regarding the risks associated with Glyphosate from the 1970’s and onwards.
Product Liability Claim
We have also put Patricia in touch with lawyers dealing with a class action against the manufacturers of the main pesticide (“Roundup”). This on the basis that the pesticide was a defective product within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act of 1987.
Compensation
If her husband’s employers are found liable, they will have to pay compensation not just to Patricia but also to a number of other relatives of her late husband. The combined value of the claim is likely to be in excess of £500,000.
