Muller v Qld Electricity Com - [1999] QSC 123

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane  No.755 of 1990
Before the Hon. Mr Justice Shepherdson
[Muller v Qld Electricity Com.]
BETWEEN:
  ROY ARTHUR MULLER
  Plaintiff
AND:
  QUEENSLAND ELECTRICITY COMMISSION
  Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - SHEPHERDSON J.

Judgment delivered 8 June 1999
CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - Master and Servant - Toxic Tort - plaintiff worked as a surface coating inspector for the defendant - now has severe irreversible asthma - claim that exposure to isocyanates at work caused his present condition - pre-May 1987 plaintiff was asthmatic - whether plaintiff has proven a causal relationship between the deterioration in his asthma and exposure to isocyanates - damages.

Holtman v Sampson (1985) 2 Qd R 472
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164
Skelton v Collins (1966) 115 CLR 94
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638

Counsel:Mr Curran for the plaintiff
Mr Griffin QC with Mr Allan for the defendant

Solicitors: Hillhouse, Burrough, McKeown for the plaintiff
Crown Law for the defendant

Hearing dates:                   22 March 1999 - 30 March 1999
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane  No.755 of 1990
Before the Hon. Mr Justice Shepherdson
[Muller v Qld Electricity Com.]
BETWEEN:
  ROY ARTHUR MULLER
  Plaintiff
AND:
  QUEENSLAND ELECTRICITY COMMISSION
  Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - SHEPHERDSON J.

Judgment delivered 8 June 1999

The plaintiff has sued his former employer for damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered while performing work for the employer.
The claim is based on alleged negligence and alleged breach of contract of employment. His claim essentially is that in the course of performing for the defendant his duties as a surface coating inspector, he was exposed to a toxic chemical named isocyanate, and as a consequence of that, his pre-existing asthma condition was severely aggravated causing him to suffer irreversible lung disease involving fixed airway obstruction.
The main issue litigated at the trial was whether the plaintiff has proved that the irreversible lung disease was caused by his being exposed to isocyanate at certain places named in the pleadings.
There was no dispute that at the time the writ of summons in this action issued - 22 May 1990, - the plaintiff did suffer asthma.
The plaintiff was born on 9 July 1942. He was employed by the defendant since 1973 and from early 1982 worked at Brisbane as a surface coating inspector. I find that on 11 December 1989, he ceased work as a surface coating inspector and that he has not worked since.
Although in evidence he said that the surfaces he was required to inspect included galvanising, rubber lining, basalt, concrete, industrial paints and commercial paints (T38), Exhibit 32 dated 2 February 1982 sets out the position statement for the surface coating inspector of which plaintiff was the then incumbent. I shall later mention Exhibit 32 again and also Exhibit 33 which was an internal memorandum dealing with the plaintiff's reclassification from "civil construction inspector" to "surface coating inspector". (see…

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.

Continue reading Muller v Qld Electricity Com

Details

AGLC: Muller v Qld Electricity Com [1999] QSC 123
Case: [1999] QSC 123
Decision Date: 8 June 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Roy Arthur Muller has sued his former employer, the Queensland Electricity Commission, for damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered while performing work for the employer. The claim is based on alleged negligence and alleged breach of contract of employment. His claim essentially is that in the course of performing for the defendant his duties as a surface coating inspector, he was exposed to a toxic chemical named isocyanate, and as a consequence of that, his pre-existing asthma condition was severely aggravated causing him to suffer irreversible lung disease involving fixed airway obstruction.

The main issue litigated at the trial was whether the plaintiff has proved that the irreversible lung disease was caused by his being exposed to isocyanate at certain places named in the pleadings.

The court found that the plaintiff has failed to show that the irreversible lung disease involving fixed airway obstruction has been caused by severe or any aggravation of pre-existing asthma, such aggravation being caused by exposure to isocyanates while in the defendant's employ.

Damages were assessed at $792,685.22, but this was reduced by $51,963.91 to $740,721.31 to account for the Workers' Compensation Board charge. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and judgment was given for the defendant against the plaintiff. The parties were to be heard on costs.

Orders