The danger of dust and legal implications for our farmers
At this time of year people involved in the agricultural and rural sector become only too well aware of the effects of dust, whether this arises from organic material or from carrying out other work on the farms, writes Steven Corfield.
In recent years the increase of asthma and similar respiratory diseases has become a significant talking point.
People who never previously had asthma or respiratory illnesses have been developing them in later life and crops such as oil seed rape have affected many farmers and non-farmers alike.
The most common respiratory symptoms reported by farmers and farm works are wheezing, coughs, skin irritation and the more important diseases of rhinitis and asthma.
Dust can also trigger allergies.
None of this will be a surprise, but there are also effects from a legal point of view which need to be taken into account.
As an employer of farm workers, the farmer and/or land owner needs to make sure that the employees are given the appropriate training in health and safety and provided with the right equipment to minimise the risk of exposure to dust.
Linked to this, if a farmer/land owner takes out insurance cover to protect against the risk of claims by employees, the insurance cover may be rendered inadequate if the farmer/land owner has not complied with the relevant health and safety requirements.
When contractors are brought in to deal with farm work it is important to make sure that the contractors have proper insurance cover and take on full responsibility for their own personal risk and that of their employees so that this liability falls at the feet of the farmer/land owner.
From the farmer/land owner's own health point of view, if illness occurs and is intended to be covered under private medical cover, care needs to have been taken to comply with the terms of the medical insurance policy.
The cover could be rendered void because of the farmer/land owner fails to comply with the relevant health and safety requirements involved in carrying out what may be construed as an industrial process.
With regard to dust transferring on to adjoining and neighbouring properties, again there have been some cases similar to those involving pesticides which have lead to claims.
Although not relevant in this country there was a case in Spain where a shipment of peanuts was being unloaded and the wind blew dust across the town causing some serious asthma problems including fatalities.
Such a case could be capable of being brought in the courts in this country, although it would be likely to be extremely complex and expensive.
In short it is in everybody's interest to make sure that the appropriate steps are taken to minimise the risk of illness brought about through working in dusty environments.
* Steven Corfield is a partner and agricultural specialist at Shropshire law firm FBC Manby Bowdler LLP
