Asbestos victim, aged 92, wins landmark ruling
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Elderly victims of fatal, asbestos-related lung cancer should not be awarded smaller compensation packages simply because they have enjoyed longer lives than younger sufferers, a judge has ruled in a landmark case.
Dennis Ball, a 92-year-old with incurable lung cancer from Nottinghamshire, sued the Government after he contracted mesothelioma from his time working as an employee for the now-defunct British Coal.
He brought his case against the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which argued that he should receive less money for "pain and suffering" because he was already in his nineties. However, Mrs Justice Swift disagreed in a ruling that paves the way for elderly sufferers to receive compensation packages similar to those given to younger victims.
The Government initially argued that Mr Ball was entitled to only £20,000 compensation, significantly below the amount recommended by the Judicial Studies Board, which recommends payments of £50,000 to £85,000. By the time they came to court they had upped their offer to £35,000.
Mrs Justice Swift awarded £50,000 for pain and suffering plus £13,000 extra in care costs and lost income.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments