Meandarra Aerial Spraying Pty Ltd v Gej & MA Geldard PTY LTD

Meandarra Aerial Spraying Pty Ltd and its managing director and chief pilot, the second appellant, were involved in a dispute with the respondent over aerial spraying activities. The first appellant, an aerial spraying company, and the second appellant conducted aerial spraying operations near the respondent's properties, leading to alleged damage to the respondent's cotton crops. The primary issues before the court were whether the appellants owed a duty of care to the respondent, whether they breached this duty, and the extent of the damages caused.

The court examined whether the appellants owed a duty of care to the respondent, considering the foreseeability of harm at the distance involved. The appellants argued that a reasonable person in their position would not have foreseen the risk of damage to the respondent's crops 20 km away, and that the trial judge failed to adequately consider statutory provisions. The court held that the trial judge did not err in determining the existence of a duty of care, as the risk was reasonably foreseeable. Regarding the breach of duty, the court found that the trial judge correctly assessed the standard of care and the appellants' actions as a breach of that duty.

The court also considered the causation of the damage to the respondent's crops. The appellants argued that the respondent failed to prove causation due to the inability to quantify the amount of herbicide reaching the crops. However, the court found that the trial judge correctly concluded that it was more probable than not that the damage was caused by the appellants' spraying. The court further assessed the extent of the quantifiable loss, rejecting the appellants' contentions that the loss should be reduced or unproven. Finally, the court held that the appellants bore the onus of proving the existence of concurrent wrongdoers and failed to do so, thus being liable for the entirety of the respondent's loss.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the trial judge's findings on duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and the extent of damages.