Drydocks held responsible for man's death due to asbestos exposure

The government was yesterday held responsible for the damages sustained by the family of a Drydocks worker who had died as a result of asbestos poisoning.

The court put the case off for January expressing the hope that the parties would reach an out-of-court settlement.

The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Philip Sciberras in the case filed by Carmena, Dorothy and James Fenech, the heirs of the late Joseph Fenech, against the Malta Drydocks.

In 2004 the government took over the case as defendant instead of Malta Drydocks.

The heirs told the court that in February 1997, Mr Fenech, Carmena's husband and Dorothy's and James's father, had died.

He had started work at the Drydocks in 1959 and had remained there until he was boarded out in 1995. Through the course of his employment Mr Fenech had worked as a yard boy, skilled labourer and boilermaker and had been exposed to asbestos. He had died as a direct result of exposure to asbestos at work.

The heirs asked the court to declare Malta Drydocks responsible for Mr Fenech's death and to condemn the enterprise and the government to make good the damages they had sustained.

Mr Justice Sciberras said that in 1992 Mr Fenech had felt ill and had been diagnosed as suffering from malignant mesothelioma. He died five years later at the age of 55.

Mr Fenech's condition consisted in an enormous and rare tumour that was, however, very common in persons who were exposed to asbestos. In fact, malignant mesothelioma was caused by continued exposure to asbestos fibres.

Products made from asbestos were installed on ships as in the case, for example, of pipe lagging systems.

It resulted, from the medical evidence produced, that Mr Fenech had developed the tumour as a direct result of exposure to asbestos at the workplace. The autopsy results also confirmed this conclusion.

The court found that as Mr Fenech had been employed at the Drydocks, his employer was bound to ensure his protection. But the Drydocks had failed to do so and it had not convinced the court that it had done whatever it could to protect Mr Fenech even though it was well known that certain works carried out in the dockyard were potentially endangering health.

Mr Justice Sciberras therefore found that the Drydocks was responsible for Mr Fenech's illness and death.

However, the court deemed it opportune not to liquidate the damages suffered by Mr Fenech's heirs at this stage. It wanted to give the parties to the suit the opportunity to reach an out-of-court settlement.

Mr Justice Sciberras therefore put the case off for January 31 and said that in the event that no settlement would be reached by then he would hear verbal submissions on the quantum of damages.