Ship's officer wins Pounds 35,900 in asbestos dust claim

A SHIP'S officer who claimed he was exposed to asbestos dust while serving on a ferry chartered by B & I Line was awarded…

A SHIP'S officer who claimed he was exposed to asbestos dust while serving on a ferry chartered by B & I Line was awarded Pounds 35,900 damages by the High Court yesterday.

B & I Line was granted an order under which it can claim against a Scandinavian firm to recover the damages. That company was employed by the Faroe Islands owners of the my Norrona to carry out work on the vessel in early 1990.

Mr Justice Johnson made the award to Mr Sean O'Byrne (44), Aranleigh Road, Rathfarnham, Dublin, who was an officer in the ship at the time and who has since left the company.

Claims by a further seven officers were adjourned until next week.

READ MORE

Mr O'Byrne claimed that while the ship was on short charter on B & I's Rosslare Pembroke route, he was exposed to large quantities of asbestos dust and a risk of injury of which the company knew, or ought to have known.

He told the court that in February 1990 workers came on board and began removing asbestos from various parts of the vessel.

Mr O'Byrne and his colleagues were alarmed because the men removing the material were dressed in protective clothing as they pulled down panels and put them in skips. He claimed he was exposed to asbestos dust for some hours over three days.

Making the award, Mr Justice Johnson said he had no hesitation in saying Mr O'Byrne was an angry man and, in his view, with reason. Mr O'Byrne claimed he was deliberately placed in danger by his employer. He felt angry because he had gone to the employer to inquire about the material.

He was worried because he was exposed to asbestos deliberately. There was no doubt that there was a risk factor to be taken into consideration.

The judge referred to medical evidence. One medical expert had indicated that in his view it required a far more prolonged exposure to asbestos than Mr O'Byrne had had. It was extremely difficult to compensate people just for a risk because when the risk was calculated as low as it had been by two medical witnesses, it was very difficult to come to figures.

It was manifestly fair that Mr O'Byrne should take reasonable precautions to be checked out at any time he wanted. The court was also entitled to take into account the view of a psychiatrist who indicated that counselling would be a good thing.

The judge said the risk may be small and he allocated Pounds 10,000 for future expenses and Pounds 25,000 general damages.