Carey-Hazell v Getz Bros & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd

The case of Carey-Hazell v Getz Bros & Co (Aust) Pty Ltd concerns the applicant's claim for damages arising from the implantation of a mechanical mitral valve in her heart, which subsequently led to the development of thromboembolisms and related health complications. The applicant, who was born on 23 March 1962, was diagnosed with Barlow’s syndrome at the age of 13, a condition involving a partial prolapse of the mitral valve. Over the years, her condition was monitored by her cardiologist, who eventually referred her to a surgeon. The surgery, which was conducted in June 1996, involved the implantation of a mechanical mitral valve, manufactured by St Jude Medical Inc. Post-surgery, the applicant experienced severe thromboembolisms, necessitating further surgery to replace the mechanical valve with a bio-prosthetic one. The applicant's claim includes economic loss due to her inability to work as an Investment Development Manager, as well as unquantified claims for the cost of domestic care.

The legal issues in this case revolve around the liability of the first respondent, the supplier of the mechanical valve, for the damages suffered by the applicant. The applicant argues that the mechanical valve was defective and unreasonably dangerous, leading to her health complications. The court needed to determine whether the first respondent was liable for the injuries sustained by the applicant as a result of the valve's implantation. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the applicant's pre-existing medical conditions contributed to her injuries and, if so, to what extent.

In dismissing the applicant's claims, the court found that the first respondent was not liable for the damages suffered by the applicant. The court held that the mechanical valve was not defective or unreasonably dangerous, and that the applicant's injuries were not solely attributable to the valve. The court also found that the applicant's pre-existing medical conditions and other factors, including two motor vehicle accidents, significantly contributed to her injuries. Therefore, the applicant's claims against the first respondent were dismissed. The court further ordered that the applicant pay the respondents' costs, including any reserved costs.