Does the recent ruling in the BAI v Durham and BAI v Thomas Bates and Son case (which was concerned with exposure to asbestos) have implications for exposure to other hazardous substances? In the case in point the Supreme Court ruled that the test of liability should be ‘material contribution’ which translates to the victim needing to show that they were negligently exposed. This is an inherently fairer ruling for the victim. This will mean that some employers will face liabilities where their actions, although negligent, did not cause the disease; this is a necessary position to protect the innocent victims. The courts would not have turned their attention to this had the companies, insurers and councils not taken such a hard line in the battles they have fought to limit compensation to those that shoulder the legacy. The case has set the test for legal liability at ‘material contribution’ and liability as ‘joint and several’, in other words when someone is exposed to asbestos they have recourse to each and every employer that exposed them for their full compensation. I cannot see why this test could not be applied to other hazardous substances. For example, a paint sprayer working with isocyanate who has become sensitised and now has asthma could, if the test in this judgement is applied, sue every employer he has ever worked for. He would only have to establish that he worked with the substance while in their employ and that the employer was negligent in not having adequate controls in place. How say you?