Geyer v RESI Corporation - [2013] SADC 122

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
GEYER v RESI CORPORATION
[2013] SADC 122
Judgment of His Honour Judge Jennings
30 August 2013
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE
ASBESTOS - DUTY OF CARE - ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant from 14/7/57 to 14/9/98 as a boilermaker/welder, leading hand boilermaker, assistant foreman and mechanical foreman at its Playford Power Stations. The defendant conceded that if there is a finding that the plaintiff has mesothelioma it was caused by his employment at the Playford Power Stations. The issue before the Court is whether the plaintiff has mesothelioma. Ruling made pursuant to section 45A of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) re admissibility of documents.
Held: The plaintiff had extensive exposure to asbestos over a long period. It is more probable than not that the plaintiff has mesothelioma. Assessment of damages: General Damages $175,000; Loss of life expectancy $65,000; Griffiths v Kerkemeyer $50,000; Exemplary damages $20,000; Interest $2,000; making a total of $327,474.
Dust Diseases Act 2005 (SA) s 9(2); Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 45A, referred to.
Davie v The Lord Provost, Magistrates and Councillors of the City of Edinburgh (1953) SC 34; Geste v Pereira [1991] SASC 3018; Hillier and Carney v Lucas [2000] SASC 331; Amaba Pty Ltd v Booth [2010] NSWCA 344; Dingley v The Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police (1998) SC 548; Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd; Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Willmore [2011] UKSC 10; BHP Billiton v Hamilton and Another [2013] SASFC 75; BHP Billiton Limited v Parker (2012) 113 SASR 306; Van Soest v BHP Billiton (No 2) [2013] SADC 95; Southern Equities Corporation Ltd (in liq) and Others v Bond and Others (No 2) [2001] SASC 70; Ryan and Others v ETSA and Others (No 2) (1987) 47 SASR 239; Carr v Baker (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 301; Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298, considered.

GEYER v RESI CORPORATION
[2013] SADC 122
Introduction

This is a claim for damages for personal injury.
The plaintiff was born on 21 August 1928.
Between about 14 July 1957 and 14 September 1988 he was employed by the Electricity Trust of South Australia (ETSA) (the liabilities of ETSA have been assigned to RESI Corporation) (the defendant) as a boilermaker/welder, leading hand boilermaker, assistant foreman and mechanical foreman at its Playford Power Stations. During this employment up until September 1986 he asserts that he was exposed to asbestos dust and fibre whilst installing, mixing, removing and generally handling insulation materials containing asbestos and while working in and about area contaminated by asbestos dust and fibre. He also asserts that he was required to work in the vicinity of others installing, removing and generally working with insulation materials containing asbestos.
As a consequence thereof he asserts that he was exposed to and inhaled asbestos dust and fibre and that he has contracted asbestos related conditions including pleural effusion, asbestos related pleural plaques with calcification, pleural thickening, asbestosis and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Geyer v RESI Corporation and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] SADC 122
Decision Date: 30 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Geyer v RESI Corporation, the plaintiff, Mr. Geyer, brought an action against RESI Corporation for alleged negligence in failing to warn of the risks associated with exposure to asbestos contained within the building materials of a property he purchased from the defendant. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Mr. Geyer contended that his exposure to asbestos had caused significant health issues, including mesothelioma, and that the defendant had a duty of care to warn him of the presence of asbestos in the building materials.

The central legal issue before the court was whether RESI Corporation owed a duty of care to Mr. Geyer to warn him about the asbestos in the property, and if so, whether this duty was breached. The court also needed to determine the appropriate assessment of damages for the harm suffered by Mr. Geyer. The defendant argued that it had no such duty and that any exposure to asbestos was not a result of its actions.

The court found that RESI Corporation did owe a duty of care to Mr. Geyer to warn him of the asbestos risks. It was established that the defendant knew or ought to have known about the presence of asbestos in the building materials. The court held that the failure to warn constituted a breach of this duty. Regarding damages, the court assessed the extent of Mr. Geyer's injuries and the impact on his life, leading to a determination of the appropriate compensation. The court concluded that the defendant was liable for the full extent of the harm caused by the asbestos exposure.

In conclusion, the court ordered RESI Corporation to pay damages to Mr. Geyer for the harm caused by his exposure to asbestos. The precise amount of damages was determined based on the severity of Mr. Geyer's health issues and the impact on his life, ensuring that he received appropriate compensation for his injuries.

Orders