Reform needed for workers exposed to silica dust

Written by Kathleen-Erin Lawson, partner at Thorntons 

Kathleen-Erin Lawson discusses the current position for workers potentially exposed to inhalation of silica dust and what more needs to be done.

Eight cases of artificial stone silicosis were reported in the UK in 2023, leading doctors to call for improved guidelines and protections for workers potentially exposed to inhalation of silica dust.  

Silicosis is a lung disease caused by inhaling silica dust, primarily affecting workers in industries such as mining, construction and manufacturing. The Health and Safety Executive recognises silica as the biggest risk to construction workers after asbestos. As awareness of this condition increases, personal injury specialists can expect a new wave of litigation for workers exposed to this harmful substance without the right protection.

A recent paper has also identified a severe and progressive form of silicosis linked to the cutting of artificial or engineered stone or quartz, which is regularly used for kitchen worktops. A number of workers affected have commenced legal action in England, claiming damages for personal injury as a result of their exposure to the dust and development of the disease. 

Who is most at risk of developing the disease? 

Those at risk are workers inhaling silica dust. They may be working on construction or demolition, glass manufacturing, stone masonry, laving and mining. Typically, a fine dust called respirable crystalline silica (RCS) is released into the air during the course of cutting or drilling work, leading to inhalation. While the condition usually follows exposure over a number of years, high levels of exposure over a shorter period can cause acute silicosis, as shown in the litigation involving those cutting quartz kitchen worktops.

Who may pursue a claim for damages for silicosis? 

The legal cases focus on the failure of employers to assess the risk of exposure of workers to the silica dust and to take steps to reduce the exposure by means of ventilation and protective equipment, such as masks, and failure to provide warnings, training and health surveillance. Workers who have been exposed to the dust as a result of their employers’ failures and who then develop the condition linked to that exposure may pursue a claim for damages. Cases against employers would proceed on the basis of any failures in relation to their common law duty of care to employees, as informed by the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

What may be claimed for?  

Unfortunately, there’s no cure for silicosis. The condition is progressive and potentially fatal. The claimants in the litigation south of the border have suffered an acute form of the disease that has caused severe disability, with the only potential treatment being lung transplantation. A client who has suffered injury linked to exposure to silica dust may claim damages for pain and suffering. They may have a loss of earnings if they have required time off work, or if they can no longer work or are only able to work in a reduced capacity. The client may be disadvantaged if attempting to find work in comparison to a worker without the condition. They may require care and assistance due to their medical condition and have incurred other expenses. If the condition is sadly fatal, then family members may have a claim for damages arising from the death to reflect the loss of their loved one and any loss of financial support.

What are the time limits to be aware of?  

As is the case with other occupational disease claims, the claim for damages must be resolved or an action raised in court against the party at fault no later than three years from the date of diagnosis of the condition. If the exposure to the harmful substance is continuing, then the three years runs from the last date of exposure. 

Australia has banned the use of engineered stone due to the rise in this serious medical condition but it does not appear the UK will follow. The cost-effectiveness in using artificial stone in comparison to natural stone means this work is in demand; however, employers must be vigilant of the serious risks posed to their workers and institute robust protection against the risk of injury.   

Written by Kathleen-Erin Lawson, partner at Thorntons and accredited specialist in personal injury law