[ROVERNET - UK] Rover P6 / asbestos

Alan FRANCIS royston at jualry.fsnet.co.uk
Sun Aug 22 09:05:16 BST 2004

I think this sums it up. It's not so much about the risk to health (although
clearly there is one) its more about companies covering there a*se and
ensuring they cannot be sued at a later date. Given that I read a newspaper
report on Exxon or Texaco (forget which)being hit with an enormous million
dollar bill for a pollution incident that happen in 1966 !!!! you can
understand the attitude. Not passing judgement as I am sure there may be
some on the list who think it perfectly fair and reasonable that the
"polluter/health damager pays" but just what is the Statute of Limitations
on pollution. Reckon all that tea dumped at Boston hundreds of years ago
can't of done the bay any good! ;)
However if people have paid the ultimate price for Asbestos contact then of
course there should be compensation, but do feel sometimes that with much of
the current Health and Safety legislation, however well intentioned, its
more about not being held liable in the future.

Alan Francis (part viking)

-----Original Message-----
From: rovernet-bounces at lyris.ccdata.com
[mailto:rovernet-bounces at lyris.ccdata.com]On Behalf Of Eric Russell
Sent: 22 August 2004 06:25
To: rovernet at lyris.ccdata.com
Subject: Re: [ROVERNET - UK] Rover P6 / asbestos

"class action lawyers are advertising in tonight's
newspaper for people who believe they are affected by
asbestos illness due to products produced by
Federal-Mogul (who are apparently insolvent)."

Just checked their website to find that they have
restructured to separate the asbestos lawsuit from
their operations. Makes interesting reading.
Hindsight is always the most clear.


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

rovernet mailing list
rovernet at lyris.ccdata.com
To unsubscribe, go to this web page, look near the bottom and follow

More information about the rovernet mailing list