By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Lance Slayton, a Denver-area contractor, received a 10-year prison sentence for endangering a worker and the surrounding community by failing to disclose and mitigate an asbestos hazard during a demolition job. Slayton hired an unlicensed worker to demolish an asbestos-contaminated apartment, removing warning signs beforehand. These actions resulted in convictions for criminal exploitation of an at-risk elder, Air Quality Control Act violations, and causing a hazardous substance incident. A restitution hearing is scheduled to determine the amount Slayton will pay, with prosecutors seeking $85,000. Slayton’s girlfriend also faces charges related to the incident.
Read the original article here
A Colorado contractor recently received a ten-year prison sentence for exposing an employee to asbestos, a case highlighting the severe consequences of such negligence. The sentence stemmed from a situation where the contractor, fully aware of the presence of asbestos in an apartment unit, deliberately concealed this fact from the subcontractor he hired for demolition work.
This deliberate deception is a significant factor in the harsh sentence. The contractor knew the risks associated with asbestos exposure, yet he prioritized profit over the safety of his employee. He profited handsomely from the job, receiving $71,000 for a task he knew involved a serious health hazard. This financial gain, coupled with his blatant disregard for the subcontractor’s well-being, undoubtedly contributed to the judge’s decision.
Adding to the severity of the situation, the subcontractor was not only uninformed about the presence of asbestos but also lacked the proper licensing and protective equipment necessary for safe asbestos abatement. The contractor even went so far as to remove warning signs before the subcontractor arrived on-site, demonstrating a calculated effort to avoid responsibility. The indictment specifically mentioned a “major spill” of asbestos throughout the apartment, underscoring the extent of the contamination.
The contractor’s actions extended beyond simply endangering his employee. He also engaged in criminal exploitation and theft from an at-risk elderly homeowner, further compounding his offenses. The 10-year sentence reflects these multiple charges, with the sentences for exploiting the elderly owner running concurrently with the charges related to the asbestos exposure. Specifically, he received four-year sentences for causing a hazardous substance incident and endangering neighbors, which were served concurrently with the ten-year sentences for exploiting and defrauding the elderly homeowner.
The long-term health risks associated with asbestos exposure are a crucial aspect of this case. Asbestos is a known carcinogen, capable of causing a rare and aggressive form of lung cancer that can take decades to manifest. The fact that the symptoms may not appear for 30 to 40 years after exposure adds another layer of complexity and concern. This inherent time lag between exposure and potential diagnosis makes assessing the true extent of the damage and fairly compensating victims extremely difficult. The attorney general’s office sought $85,000 in restitution, but the long-term health consequences could far exceed this amount. A system of ongoing medical monitoring and financial provision for future treatment would be a more just and complete solution for victims.
The sentence, while seemingly harsh to some, reflects the seriousness of the contractor’s actions. The case underscores the need for stricter enforcement of regulations surrounding asbestos handling, as well as highlighting the long-term health consequences that can result from negligent or intentional exposure. The deliberate removal of warning signs, the financial motive, and the endangerment of both the employee and the surrounding neighbors all contributed to the severity of the punishment.
There are wider implications to consider as well. The case raises questions about the adequacy of current regulations and oversight concerning asbestos. Some argue that the sentence isn’t sufficient given the potential for long-term health problems and the fact that the contractor profited from his actions. Others have questioned whether the contractor will face further civil liability and the financial consequences that might accompany such lawsuits, particularly given the potential for long-term health issues in those exposed. The case also raises broader questions about corporate responsibility and the need for robust legal protections to prevent similar incidents in the future. The conversation surrounding this case emphasizes the need for comprehensive approaches that address not just criminal liability but also the long-term medical and financial consequences for victims of asbestos exposure. Ultimately, it’s a complex issue with implications that extend far beyond the specifics of this particular case.