We’re not here to point the finger at individuals or companies. We’re here to show how one incident on asbestos poisoning can establish principles and practices that affect the law of a country (in this case the United States) and a State (in this case West Virginia).

The plan was straightforward. The aim was to produce hydroelectric power. The result would be cheap and effective electrical generation. To create the power, they first dug a tunnel from Hawks Nest to Gauley Bridge. This was to divert the flow of the New River under the Gauley Mountain. The construction would need to have a dam built at the Hawks Nest end of the tunnel and the water would then flow through the new tunnel. It all sounds like one of those dream-come-true projects.

Then it got even better. While the tunnel was being cut it was found that there was silica in the rock which could be mined and used in the electro processing of steel. All this was a bonus as now instead of throwing away everything which was dug from the ground, the rock and everything else could be sent for processing and would help to pay for the work to make the hydroelectricity.

What went wrong? Out of 3,000 workers employed at the site there were 109 admitted deaths but a congressional committee placed the death toll at 476. Other sources have put the death toll at 700 to 1,000. The situation is complicated by the fact that many of the workers on the site had migrated from the southern USA when they started to work there. These migrant workers returned south when the job was complete and so there was no accurate count of the number of deaths which could be made.

How did this happen? Exposure to Silica dust causes Silicosis, a lung disease where the sufferer cannot breathe properly. The miners were not provided with masks or breathing apparatus despite the fact, when management of the company involved visited the tunnel to inspect the work they wore protection.

The principle of American law now is the employer has a responsibility to create a safe environment for the employees he has working for him. Yes, there are times when risks are unavoidable but to have safety equipment which could keep the workers healthy and not make it available makes the company liable.

The same company faced another enormous accident when its subsidiary on the Indian subcontinent has a gas leak and then over 3,000 were filled and 100,000 injured. The place where the leak happened is called Bhopal.

Industrial accidents are common but not on the scale of the two which have already been quoted. On the other hand the problems of asbestos exposure don’t become obvious in a year or even two years, but the problems only come to the fore after 30 or 40 years. Claimants are rushing to get their claims in today for illness that they may or may not suffer from in a few years time. They could die of a car accident or get shot, before they suffer at all. Yet in order to avoid being caught by the statute of limitations they must submit a claim. Some States are allowing claims of healthy people to be submitted, but to then be held until they suffer some health problems related to asbestos exposure. This may be a fairer way to deal with injury, rather than take a doctor’s opinion on the likelihood of asbestos-related health issues. After all will the doctor be alive or the practice the doctor is part of be open and be sued for the fact that some patients did not exhibit any form of asbestos-related illness and yet they were compensated for the possibility of it.

We may be taking things to the extreme here but if the courts recognize the liability of current and former employers to care for their staff, then the courts should look at the liability of doctors who get the diagnosis wrong in a litigation case.