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

The grieving relatives of a grandmother are suing Boots, claiming her death was caused by asbestos poisoning while she worked for them as a teenager 60 years ago.

Anne Lawton joined the famous pharmacy in 1957 at the age of 15, claiming she had been exposed to fatal levels of asbestos in her store in Stoke-on-Trent.

In 2019, the grandmother-of-four from Cheadle, Staffordshire, learned she had an incurable asbestos-related cancer – mesothelioma – and died 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.

Anne Lawton, who joined Boots at the age of 15, died in 2021 from the incurable asbestos-related cancer, mesothelioma.

Ms Lawton’s family are now suing Boots over her death, claiming the company failed to protect her.

But Boots’ lawyers deny the company breached its duty to Ms Lawton or that there was a ‘foreseeable risk’ of her suffering a fatal disease.

While Ms. Lawton worked at the branch, it underwent renovations that included installing suspended ceilings that contained asbestos, her lawyers say.

Shortly before her death, Mrs Lawton made a statement describing how she swept up floors full of dust.

She writes: ‘During the renovation, the store was extremely dusty. I was given a broom and told to sweep the floor a few times a day.

‘Every floor was dusty, including the dressing room, where a suspended ceiling was installed.

‘I remember having to sweep the storage areas at least twice a day. When I did this, there was dust on my clothes.’

The Boots branch where Mrs Lawton worked in Stoke-on-Trent from 1957.

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

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

And if there had indeed been asbestos exposure, “there is no evidence at all that the suspect took any of the cheap and simple measures that would have reduced that risk,” he continued.

He said some of the alleged exposure had occurred after the “explosion” in public knowledge about the dangers of asbestos that occurred after 1965.

But for Boots, barrister John Williams QC denied that the risk of Ms Lawton being injured was ‘foreseeable’ by the standards of the time.

He also said the company denies any “breach of duty” it owes Ms Lawton as a staff member.

In the period before 1965, fatal diseases were thought to only pose a risk if there was “heavy and prolonged” exposure to asbestos, he said.

The trial before Judge Vikram Sachdeva KC continues.