Legal Research
Cases
Bale v Seltsam Pty Ltd

Bale v Seltsam Pty Ltd

Case [1996] QCA 288 23 August 1996

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 288
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal no. 282 of 1995

Brisbane

[Bale v. Seltsam Pty Ltd]

BETWEEN:

JOYCE BARBARA BALE

(Plaintiff) Appellant

AND:

SELTSAM PTY LTD

(Defendant) Respondent
Fitzgerald P.
McPherson J.A.
Helman J.

Judgment delivered 23/08/96

Separate concurring reasons for judgment of McPherson J.A. and Helman J.; separate dissenting reasons for judgment of Fitzgerald P.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITH COSTS.

CATCHWORDS:	NEGLIGENCE - liability - appellant exposed to low doses of asbestos dust through her husband's employment at asbestos works - whether injury to the appellant as a result of that level of exposure to asbestos dust reasonably foreseeable - state of scientific knowledge on the subject at the relevant time.
Counsel:	Mr R. Stenson for the appellant Mr S. Doyle S.C. for the respondent
Solicitors:	Wall Payne & Craswell for the appellant Ebsworth & Ebsworth for the respondent
Hearing date:	8 March 1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	Appeal No. 282 of 1995
Brisbane
Before	Fitzgerald P.

McPherson J.A.
Helman J.

[Bale v. Seltsam P/L]

BETWEEN:

JOYCE BARBARA BALE

(Plaintiff) Appellant

AND:

SELTSAM PTY LTD

(Defendant) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - FITZGERALD P.

Judgment delivered 23/08/1996

The appellant has appealed against the dismissal of her action against the respondent for damages for negligence. The issue for determination in this Court is whether the respondent owed the appellant a duty of care. If the Court holds that such a duty existed, judgment should be entered for the appellant in the agreed sum of $94,916.10.

It is not in dispute that the appellant’s malignant pleural mesothelioma resulted from the respondent’s acts and omissions, and that the causal relationship between the respondent’s conduct and the appellant’s illness needed to establish an action in negligence existed.[1] The respondent exposed the appellant to inhalation of the asbestos dust which caused her illness by permitting her husband, who worked for the respondent from 1 June 1962 to 30 August 1965, to return home with asbestos dust on his person, on his work-clothes which were laundered by the appellant, and on and in his motor vehicle which was cleaned and used by the appellant, and failed to warn her of the risk associated with such exposure to asbestos dust. It is not disputed by the respondent that inexpensive and convenient systems could have been implemented which would have protected the appellant from exposure to the asbestos dust, and it was not suggested that, if warned appropriately, the appellant would have continued to accept such exposure.2 No challenge was made by the respondent to the trial judge’s finding that, “[i]f called upon to do so”, i.e., had “some harm ... been found likely”, she would have concluded “that the [respondent] was not entitled to take the risk of [the appellant] contracting pleural plaques (or any other physical injury) and that by doing so it would have fallen below a reasonable standard ... in the period under consideration”.3

(1995) 127 A.L.R. 180,…

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 Bale v Seltsam Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Bale v Seltsam Pty Ltd [1996] QCA 288
Case: [1996] QCA 288
Decision Date: 23/08/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bale v Seltsam Pty Ltd concerned the issue of negligence and whether the respondent, Seltsam Pty Ltd, could be held liable for the appellant's injuries resulting from her exposure to low doses of asbestos dust through her husband's employment at an asbestos works. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant claimed that her exposure to asbestos dust via her husband's contaminated clothing led to her developing an injury, and she sought damages from the respondent for their negligence in failing to provide a safe working environment.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent could be held liable for the appellant's injury, given that her exposure to asbestos dust was at a low level. The court needed to determine if the injury to the appellant was reasonably foreseeable at the time, considering the state of scientific knowledge on the effects of asbestos exposure. This involved examining whether the respondent could have reasonably anticipated the risk of harm to the appellant due to the level of asbestos dust exposure and whether the level of harm was sufficiently foreseeable.

The court held that the respondent could be held liable for the appellant's injury, even though her exposure to asbestos dust was at a low level. The court found that the injury was reasonably foreseeable, considering the state of scientific knowledge at the relevant time. The court emphasised that the risk of harm to the appellant was not negated by the low level of exposure, and the respondent's failure to provide a safe working environment contributed to the appellant's injury. The court determined that the respondent's negligence in not controlling asbestos dust exposure at the workplace was a significant factor in the appellant's injury.

The High Court of Australia found in favour of the appellant and held that the respondent was liable for the appellant's injury due to their negligence. The court ordered the respondent to pay damages to the appellant for the injury sustained as a result of her exposure to low doses of asbestos dust through her husband's employment. The court's decision underscored the importance of employers taking reasonable steps to protect employees and those indirectly exposed to hazardous substances in the workplace.

Orders