Moss v Amaca Pty Ltd (Formerly James Hardie and Co Pty Ltd)

In Moss v Amaca Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought compensation for injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos in a product manufactured by the defendant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff, a home handyman, alleged that his exposure to asbestos from the defendant's product led to significant personal injury. The defendant, previously known as James Hardie and Co Pty Ltd, contested the claim, arguing that it was not negligent in its production and distribution of the product and that any exposure was unforeseeable.

The central legal issues in the case involved whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and, if so, whether that duty was breached in a manner that caused or materially contributed to the plaintiff's injury. The court had to determine if the plaintiff's injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions, and whether the defendant's warnings and precautions were adequate to discharge any duty of care. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendant was required to prove causation after the plaintiff had established a prima facie case.

In its reasoning, the court found that the duty of care owed by the defendant extended to those who would use the product in a normal manner, including the plaintiff's role as a home handyman. The court held that exposure to asbestos in such a context was reasonably foreseeable. Regarding the adequacy of warnings and precautions, the court found that the defendant's efforts were insufficient to discharge the duty of care. Finally, the court applied the decision in City of Stirling v Tremeer, concluding that once a prima facie case was established, the onus shifted to the defendant to prove causation. The court found that the defendant failed to discharge this onus.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injuries and awarded damages accordingly. The court determined that the defendant's failure to provide adequate warnings and precautions constituted a breach of duty, which materially contributed to the plaintiff's injuries.