Family of grandmother who died 60 years 'after being poisoned by asbestos as 15-year-old Boots shopgirl' sues firm for £135,000

A grandmother's grieving relatives are suing Boots claiming her death was caused by asbestos poisoning while she worked their as a teenager 60 years ago.

Anne Lawton joined the high-street chemist aged 15 in 1957 and claimed she was exposed to deadly quantities of asbestos at her store in Stoke-on-Trent.   

In 2019 the grandmother of four from Cheadle, Staffordshire, learnt she had an incurable asbestos linked cancer- mesothelioma- dying two years later in February.

Her family are suing Boots for £135,000, accusing the high street giants of 'failing to take cheap and simple steps' to protect her from asbestos dust.

But lawyers for Boots deny the company breached its duty to Mrs Lawton or that there was a 'foreseeable risk' of her suffering a deadly disease.

While Mrs Lawton worked at the branch it was undergoing a refurbishment, which included the installation of suspended ceilings containing asbestos, her lawyers say.

Shortly before her death, Mrs Lawton gave a statement telling how she swept up floors covered in dust.

She wrote: 'During the refit, the store was incredibly dusty. I was given a broom and told to sweep the floors a couple of times a day. 

'Every floor was dusty, including the locker room, which was next to where a suspended ceiling was being fitted.

'I remember having to sweep the storerooms at least twice a day. I had dust all over my clothes when I did this.' 

Mrs Lawton, who went on to work in the books department at the store, eventually left her job at Boots in 1969-70.

For her family, barrister Simon Kilvington KC claims that there was sufficient asbestos in the dust she encountered to create a 'foreseeable risk' of injury.

And if there had indeed been exposure to asbestos, 'there is no evidence at all that the defendant took any of the cheap and simple steps that would have reduced that risk,' he continued.

He said part of the alleged exposure had occurred after the 'explosion' in public knowledge about the dangers of asbestos which occurred after 1965.

But for Boots barrister John Williams KC denied the risk of Mrs Lawton being injured was 'foreseeable' based on the standards of the time.

He also said the company denies any 'breach of duty' which it owed to Mrs Lawton as a member of staff.

In the period before 1965, it was thought that deadly disease was only a risk if there was 'heavy and prolonged' exposure to asbestos, he said.

The trial before Judge Vikram Sachdeva KC continues.