The boy in question had played for five or six years on the tip from the age of eight. He had not worked with asbestos in adult life.
Despite the fact he contracted mesothelioma in adult life and it could reasonably be inferred he had done so through childhood exposure at the tip, it was relevant to consider whether the risk of injury to the claimant in the 1950s through occasional, relatively low exposure was such as to make the risk of injury foreseeable at that time.
This level of secondary exposure did not reach levels amounting to a breach of duty of care in the 1950s.
Nor was there evidence that the defendant knew or ought to have known that the children were playing in the waste at the tip. The claim failed.
John Pinder -v- Cape PLC (2006). QBD (Manchester) (Ramsey J) 20 December 2006
Rugby at school: players should normally be same age
A school was vicariously liable for selecting a boy who was bigger and older than those boys in the opposing team when the bigger boy caused a smaller boy injury in a tackle.
The junior rugby guidelines of the England Rugby Football Schools Union require, by rule 5, that players should not “normally” be allowed to play other than in their own age grouping.
In this case, a boy who was well over 15 was selected by a school to play against another school whose entire team were under 15.
He broke another boy’s elbow in a tackle.
The above guidance was to protect smaller boys from being injured, even in legal tackles. The court was able to find the superior size, weight and maturity of the bigger boy contributed to the injury.
Counsel for the successful party was Tim Kevan and counsel for the unsuccessful appellant was Jonathan Bellamy, who does a lot of sport cases including a successful football case for Thompsons.
Mountford -v- Newlands School & Anor (2007).  EWCA Civ 21