Jang v Aust Meat Hold P/L

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Jang v Aust Meat Hold P/L  [2001] QCA 51

PARTIES:

PETER KEITH JANG
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
AUSTRALIA MEAT HOLDINGS PTY LTD
ACN 011 062 338
(defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 3332 of 2000
SC 21 of 1995

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

23 February 2001

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 November 2000

JUDGES:

Pincus JA, Cullinane and Wilson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Appeal allowed with costs.

Vary judgment given by learned primary judge by  substituting the figure of $163,080.87 for $259,973.63.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – Damages - loss of a chance – methods of categorising such cases – whether Malec approach should be used

TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - Essentials of Action for Negligence – Causation - whether failure of defendant employer to warn plaintiff employee of risk of contracting Q fever in workplace caused plaintiff to contract Q fever - where plaintiff already aware of risk of Q fever

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE - Essentials of Action for Negligence – Causation - whether failure of defendant employer to advise plaintiff employee to seek advice from general practitioner about Q fever vaccination caused plaintiff to contract Q fever - whether general practitioner would have given plaintiff vaccination

Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232, distinguished
Green v Chenoweth [1998] 2 Qd R 572, applied
Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638, followed

Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514, distinguished

COUNSEL:

M Grant-Taylor SC with G Cross for the appellant
J R Baulch SC with G T Reithmuller for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Thompson & Hannan for the appellant
Connolly Suthers (Townsville) for the respondent

1. PINCUS JA:   The respondent plaintiff sued the appellant defendant for damages relating to a disease, Q fever, which he contracted while in the appellant's employment at an abattoir.  The action succeeded, the respondent being awarded a little under $260,000;  the appellant has appealed with respect to both liability and quantum.

1. The respondent's case was that he contracted Q fever as a result of his employment at the appellant's meatworks at Townsville.  At the time when he got the disease he could have been protected by an injection of a vaccine which had been developed by Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (CSL) and was then available. 

1. The learned primary judge dealt in his reasons with three aspects of the respondent's allegations of breach of duty against the appellant.  The most prominent case was that the appellant should have instituted a general program of compulsory vaccination against Q fever early enough to have protected the respondent against that disease;  he contracted it in June 1993.  The judge rejected this allegation against the appellant.  His Honour found that by 1992 the appellant had set up a consultation process to determine whether the workforce could be vaccinated against Q fever and that…