Legal Research
Cases
Abel v Amaca Pty Ltd

Abel v Amaca Pty Ltd

Case [2010] SADC 98 23 July 2010

Duty of Care

Causation

Compensatory Damages

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Tort Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
ABEL v AMACA PTY LTD UNDER NSW EXTERNAL ADMINISTRATORS (FORMERLY JAMES HARDIE & COY PTY LTD)
[2010] SADC 98
Judgment of His Honour Judge Barrett
23 July 2010
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE - DUTY OF CARE - REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE
The plaintiff was employed by a builder from 1963 to 1979. He was exposed to dust from asbestos cement products made by the defendant's predecessor company. In 2005, he contracted dust diseases caused by inhalation of asbestos dust. Knowledge of the risks of asbestos dust was less during the plaintiff's employment than now. Rebuttable presumptions about knowledge in Dust Diseases Act 2005. Interpretation of s 8.
Held: Risks of dust disease reasonably foreseeable. Defendant breached duty of care.
Dust Diseases Act 2005 s8; Dust Diseases Regulations 2006 r 4; SA Narcotics and Psychotropic Drugs Act 1934-1978 s 5(4); Controlled Substances Act 1984 s 32(3), referred to.
Cross on Evidence 7th Austrlaian edition; R v Walden (1986) 41 SASR 421; R v Zapogna (2003) 85 SASR 56; Seltsam Pty Ltd v McNeill [2006] NSWCA 158; Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40; Amaca Pty Ltd v Hannell (2007) 34 WAR 39, (2007) WASC 158; Sydney Water Corporation v Turano and Ano (2009) 239 CLR 51; McCusker v Seltsam Pty Ltd and James Hardie and Coy Pty Ltd (1997) NSWDDT 179; rolls Royce v James Hardie (1999) 18 NSWSCCR 653, considered.

DAMAGES - MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - MEASURE OF DAMAGES
The plaintiff suffered pleural effusion in 2005 and other dust diseases. Damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenity. Interpretation of s 9 Dust Diseases Act 2005. Awarded General Damages, Griffiths and Kerkemeyer Damages. Declined to order s 9(3), Sullivan v Gordon damages.
Dust Diseases Act 2005 s 9(3), referred to.
Ewins v BHP Billiton Ltd and Ano (2005) 91 SASR 303, [2005] SASC 95; Peter Michael Callinan v Comcare [2006] NSWDDT 225; John Downes v Amaca Pty Ltd [2008] NSWDDT 25; Adrianus Gregoris Marie Bakker v Workcover Queensland and Ors [2008] NSWDDT 37; russell v Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Ltd and Ano [2004] NSWDDT 7; Murrell v Steveadore Industry Finance Committee [2005] NSWDDT 2; Raneberg v BHP (1993) SASC (371/92); Mosley v The Broken Hill Pty Ltd Co Ltd [1998] SASC 6522; Reynolds v Comcare [2006] SADC 136, considered.

DAMAGES - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - EXEMPLARY, PUNITIVE AND AGGRAVATED DAMAGES
The plaintiff sought exemplary damages pursuant to s 9(2) of the Dust Diseases Act 2005. Interpretation of s 9(2). Discussion about whether common law principles apply.
Held: Common law principles do apply. Defendant's conduct not such as to require an award of exemplary damages.
Dust Diseases Act 2005 s 9(2), referred to.
Trevorrow v South Australia (No5) (2007) 98 SASR 136; Gray v Motor Accident Commission (1998) 196 CLR 1, [1998] HCA 70; Beckworth…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Abel v Amaca Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Abel v Amaca Pty Ltd [2010] SADC 98
Case: [2010] SADC 98
Decision Date: 23 July 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Abel, the plaintiff, sought to recover damages from Amaca Pty Ltd, the defendant, for injuries sustained when he slipped on a wet floor at the defendant's premises. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff argued that the defendant was negligent in failing to ensure the floor was safe and dry, leading to his injuries. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that it had taken reasonable steps to prevent such accidents and that the plaintiff's injuries were not a foreseeable result of any alleged breach of duty.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and if so, whether that duty was breached, causing the plaintiff's injuries. The court also had to determine the measure and remoteness of the damages claimed by the plaintiff. In examining the duty of care, the court considered whether the risk of injury from slipping on a wet floor was reasonably foreseeable and if there were any intervening factors that might have broken the chain of causation. Regarding the damages, the court examined the appropriate measure of compensation for the injuries sustained, including general damages for pain and suffering, and any applicable aggravated or exemplary damages.

The court found that the defendant owed a duty of care to ensure that the premises were reasonably safe for visitors. It was held that the risk of injury from a wet floor was reasonably foreseeable, and the defendant had failed to take adequate precautions to prevent such an accident. The court further determined that the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of the defendant's breach of duty. In assessing the damages, the court awarded the plaintiff general damages for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and out-of-pocket expenses. The court declined to award aggravated or exemplary damages, finding that the defendant's conduct, while negligent, did not warrant such penalties.

Orders