Published 21 December 2022 at 16.42
Law & Right. Residents in Kallinge are not entitled to compensation because their drinking water was contaminated with PFAS. That is what the Court of Appeal decides, which changes the district court's judgment regarding liability for damages for the municipal company Ronneby Miljö och Teknik AB.
Like the article på Facebook
In December 2013, it was discovered that the drinking water from the Brantafors waterworks in Ronneby contained high levels of perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS).
A large number of people filed a lawsuit against the drinking water supplier, Ronneby Miljö och Teknik AB (RMT), and requested that the Blekinge District Court determine that RMT is responsible for compensating them for partly physical personal injuries, partly psychological personal injuries.
Blekinge District Court announced the verdict on April 13, 2021. In the verdict, the district court ruled that RMT was responsible for compensating each of the plaintiffs for compensable personal injury in the form of elevated levels of PFAS involving increased health risks as well as physical changes and deterioration of their bodies. The district court dismissed the action in the part that concerned mental personal injury, i.e. justified concern for ill-health and deteriorating health and life prognosis.
RMT has appealed the district court's verdict. Since only RMT has appealed the verdict, the issue of psychological injury has not been subject to review by the Court of Appeal.
The parties agree that the drinking water that RMT supplied to the plaintiffs contained very high levels of PFAS and that the water was thereby contaminated with a lack of security. It is also agreed that the levels of PFAS measured in the plaintiffs' bodies come from the drinking water and that RMT is responsible for any personal injury caused by the lack of safety.
The question for the Court of Appeal has been whether the plaintiffs have shown that they suffered physical personal injury. The starting point for the Court of Appeal's review is that the person who claims personal injury must prove that there is an injury, according to Court of Appeal Councilor Sofia Olsson.
The Court of Appeal has concluded that at the population level there is – more or less strong – support for a connection between exposure to PFAS and increased risk of several diseases and other negative health effects. However, the risk of suffering future harm does not constitute a physical injury according to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal further notes that the high levels of PFAS measured in the plaintiffs' blood do indeed mean a change in their bodies. However, the Court of Appeal does not consider that the plaintiffs have been able to prove that the change in itself constitutes damage to the body.
Nor does the fact that increased risks of negative health effects have been observed in population studies mean that every single individual in such a group can be considered to have suffered a deterioration of the body. No investigation into the impact that the PFAS exposure had on the individual plaintiffs has been presented in the case. The Court of Appeal therefore does not consider that it has been proven that any of the plaintiffs have caused personal injury through the deterioration of their body.
The plaintiffs have also claimed that they have been poisoned by being exposed to PFAS in the drinking water and that this in itself is to be considered a personal injury. In this part, the Court of Appeal has made the assessment that it is not the ingestion of a harmful substance in itself that constitutes a personal injury, but that it is required that this has led to a medically demonstrable effect on the body. The Court of Appeal has therefore concluded that the mere presence of elevated levels of PFAS in the blood does not in itself mean physical personal injury.
Overall, the Court of Appeal does not consider that it has been shown that any of the plaintiffs have suffered personal injury. The Court of Appeal therefore changes the district court's judgment and dismisses the claim for damages. The plaintiffs, who in the Court of Appeal consist of 154 people, must reimburse RMT for its legal costs.