See also Hazardous Chemicals

"You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour".
Lord Atkin - Donoghue v Stevenson 1932.

Chemicals are part of our daily life, but if your health or property is damaged because of the negligence of others be they your employer or neighbour you may well have a claim for compensation

Toxic and chemical poisoning litigation gives rights to those damaged by the wrongful actions of others and claims may arise for damages (compensation) for both personal injuries (injuries to you) and personal nuisance (injuries to property - such as damage to your house) or on some occasions, both.

Nuisance actions have arisen due to industrial plant emissions and for example where agricultural "spraydrift" occurs. The effects of some incidents are immediately recogniseable but others - especially those which take place slowly with exposure at low levels over a long period of time - can be exceptionally difficult to prove.

In either event it is important to gather the evidence and fully record the details of your case: it is important that you retain any evidence you may have which supports your exposure and ensure that when you visit your GP/Hospital for treatment you mention the cause of your injury to your doctor. 

If you have taken or can take photographs or have documents relating to the hazard, they should be retained as important evidence.  Also remember to retain evidence of any injury-related expenses such as receipts for prescriptions or medication and evidence of travelling expenses.

Providing it can be proven that your personal injury was caused by your exposure to the hazardous substance and the person/company who allowed you to come into contact with the chemical was negligent then your claim for compensation should be valid.

Many chemicals, substances and toxins are injurious to human health, some at very low and some at only relatively high levels of exposure. Chemical claims handled by injurywatch include: -

• Asbestos,
• Pesticides incl. organochlorines, lindane and PCP [pentachlorophenol], organophosphates and carbamates
• Salon Chemicals
• Solvents incl. Trichloroethylene, MEK, isocyanates and benzene
• Disinfectants - Glutaraldehyde
• Formaldehyde
• Metal(s) incl. lead, chrome, and cadmium)
• Carbon Monoxide
• Dioxin
• Acrylamide
• Radiation
• Soldering fumes
• Aluminium Sulphate - water contamination
• Biological agents- Sick Building Syndrome
• Pharmaceuticals- vaccine damage

Your right to compensation is effectively encapsulated in the concept of "duty of care" owed by one individual (or company) to another. This duty was set out in the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). The "neighbour principle" which states that you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.

For a personal injury claim to succeed a Plaintiff (the person bringing the claim) must prove that the Defendant owed a duty of care and that the duty has been breached resulting in damage.

The extent of the duty of reasonable care of an employer to an employee has been said by the Courts to be that the law in all cases exacts a degree of care commensurate with the risk created. There are numerous specific statutory and regulatory laws concerning chemical processes and hazard prevention. Should such regulations be breached this will invariably result in evidence of primary liability. The most cited regulations in toxic/chemical litigation today are undoubtedly the COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988).

It is well established that employers have a duty of care to their employees but in some cases, employees are asked to deal with dangerous chemicals at work without being issued with the necessary protective clothing or any training about how to handle the chemicals.

In other chemical poisoning cases, members of the public may have come into contact with industrial waste, which has been pumped or leaked into the sea, rivers, land sites or air. Whether your personal injury was caused by an accident at work or in a public place, you may still be entitled to make a personal injury compensation claim.

Legal actions for the acute (significant) effects of chemicals are generally successful whereas the chronic and long term low dose cases are far more difficult to prove.

Undoubtedly the major difficulty for your seeking to recover damages for personal injuries as a result of chemical poisoning is proving causation. That is whether or not the particular chemical caused the injury or illness concerned. It is insufficient that the evidence indicates a possible cause. It must be proven to be the probable cause, not one amongst other competing causes.

There is a critical distinction between medical literature suggesting association and actual proof. The standard of proof required in the civil court to succeed in a claim is in excess of 51%. This is called the "balance of probabilities" and a medical expert must testify that it is "more likely than not" that the injury/disease was caused by the chemical and that the company or individual concerned were responsible. Many actions regarding pesticide drift causing illness have often fallen at this hurdle.

It may well be that the case will never reach court and settlement can be achieved.

However if the case cannot be settled in advance, the court will seek to assess whether the chemical or toxin is capable of causing injury to humans and to what extent was dose and whether it caused this particular injury.

A critical aspect to proving a claim is establishing dose and absorption.

A further concern is "specific" causation, in other words, the individual facts of exposure. An individual's reaction to a particular chemical may depend upon that person's constitution. Susceptibility may well play a part. Chemicals may also cause an idiosyncratic response to which the legal maxim the "Egg shell skull" rule will apply i.e. you must take your victim as you find him or her. So if you are vulnerable, that will not affect your right to claim as long as some injury would have occurred to the non vulnerable.

Chemical products and exposures invariably contain combinations of chemicals. Synergistic reactions occur because of combinations of chemicals which may well cause additive effects far and above that expected of single chemical dose and exposure. No case has yet to be decided directly on this issue but as exposure and injury by chemicals is invariably multi factorial the Courts will address this issue. Multiple chemical sensitivity sufferers and those with "environmental" illnesses are watching the progress of Court actions with increasing interest, particularly developments in the USA.

Nuisance actions for chemical damage to property (rather than human poisoning) have arisen mainly as a result of industrial plant emissions. However, more recently as with human chemical poisoning court actions to "make the polluter pay" have been the objective.

Nuisance claims are usually resolved promptly. Other cases have been highly difficult to prove in Court. As an example, a number of cases involving dioxin (an unwanted by-product/ contaminant found in pesticides and industrial emissions) have been tried by the courts but sometimes with limited success.