Man, 53, died after being ‘negligently exposed’ to asbestos

A man has died weeks before a judge ruled his former employers negligently exposed him to asbestos.

John Reid, from Lanarkshire, was 53 when he died of pleural mesothelioma – an aggressive type of cancer that is usually linked to asbestos exposure.

Following his diagnosis in the summer of 2024, Mr Reid took legal action against two of his former employers, alleging his illness was “caused or materially contributed to” by negligent exposure to asbestos.

On Wednesday, the Court of Session found he was exposed to dangerous material while working for both MCM Building & Civil Engineering Construction Ltd and Pyramid Joinery & Construction Ltd.

Mr Reid died in March 2026, with a member of his legal team saying he “sadly passed away before seeing justice”.

Expert witnesses told the court that Mr Reid’s descriptions of garage roofing work and his handling of debris were consistent with asbestos‑containing materials.

In his 33-page judgment, judge Lord Harrower said Mr Reid’s first “significant exposure” to asbestos had come between 1999 and 2000 while employed by MCM – a company specialising in remedial work following property damage.

Mr Reid’s exposure with MCM was limited to roughly 1.5 days of removing asbestos‑cement garage roofs.

The judge said in one job Mr Reid had been tasked with removing asbestos roofing from a row of garages, with one man breaking off the sheets and the other at ground level catching them.

“If he was working underneath, the asbestos sheeting would come down on top of him,” the judge said.

“He would catch the larger pieces, while the smaller pieces landed on the floor.

“The broken asbestos material created a dusty atmosphere within the garages such that they would have to step outside for fresh air.”

He added that asbestos dust would also be created when pieces of broken asbestos were swept into corners or ferried out of the garage on wheelbarrows.

Despite the risks, the judge said Mr Reid had not been given a mask or protective clothing, or safety training regarding asbestos.

Most of his exposure happened between 2000 and 2003 while working with Pyramid on jobs replacing windows and doors on various council estates in the west of Scotland including in Spateston, Renfrew, Glenburn, Ayrshire, Inchinnan, and Houston.

Mr Reid was responsible for transporting materials and tidying sites, and was frequently present on walkways while joiners were “ripping out” old units.

As part of this, he was tasked with separating out asbestos from general waste and bagging it, which he did by hand, and using an industrial vacuum cleaner to clean the interiors of the flats.

Again, despite the known risks, the judge said Pyramid failed to provide Mr Reid with suitable PPE or to warn him of the dangers associated with asbestos.

Lord Harrower quoted evidence from occupational hygienist Tina Conroy, who said both companies should have known even the “slightest exposure” to asbestos dust could cause fatal pulmonary disease.

She estimated Mr Reid’s exposure to asbestos cement would have been “of the order of more than 1,000 times the concentration of asbestos dust in buildings where asbestos materials were sealed and in good condition”.

The ruling went on: “Where exposures resulted from working with AIB (asbestos insulating board), the figure would have been at least ten times higher than that, i.e. 10,000 times higher than the urban background level.”

Reacting to the judgment, Caitlyn Maccabe, senior associate at Digby Brown, said: “This ruling is both welcome and profoundly upsetting because while the court confirmed Mr Reid’s mesothelioma was caused by failures from his employers, he has sadly passed away before seeing justice.

“Few can imagine what it is like fighting for justice while battling a terminal disease but Mr Reid did this – he never stopped believing in doing the right thing for his family and for the knowledge that his legal victory could help other asbestos sufferers in the future.

“The Reid family has shown a resolve that simply can’t be described and I extend my sincerest admiration and sympathies to them at this time.

“Due to the difficult circumstances surrounding today’s judgment, the family has understandably asked that their privacy is respected as they take time to process everything that has happened in the last month.”