Legal Research
Cases
Parker v BHP Billiton Ltd

Parker v BHP Billiton Ltd

Case [2011] SADC 104 18 July 2011

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
PARKER v BHP BILLITON LIMITED
[2011] SADC 104
Judgment of His Honour Judge Lovell
18 July 2011
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE - DUTY OF CARE - REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant in the shipyard in Whyalla. In 1971/72 he was exposed to asbestos dust from products being used in ship construction. In 2004 he was diagnosed with a dust disease. Defendant's knowledge of the risks of asbestos dust. Extent of information on "risk" in the public domain. Whether risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable. Whether defendant breached standard of care. Discussion of "Shirt" calculus. Discussion s 8 of the Dust Diseases Act.
Held: Risk of dust disease reasonably foreseeable. Defendant breached duty of care.
Expert evidence. General principles. Evidence of plaintiff's expert admissible.
Limitation of Actions Act 1936 (SA) s 36(1a), s 48; Dust Diseases Act 2005 (SA) s 9(2); Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA) s 34; District Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 103, referred to.
Cosmetic Equipment Company Pty Ltd v Forrest [2008] SASC 144; Wyong SC v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40; Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club and another (2004) 217 CLR 469; Neindorf v Junkovic (2005) 80 ALJR 341; Neindorf v Junkovic (2006) 222 ALR 631; Mt Isa Mines v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383; Amaca Pty Ltd v Hannell (2007) 34 WAR 109; Mulligan v Coffs Harbour City Council (2005) 223 CLR 486, per Hayne J at 501; Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422, per Hayne J at 462; Mulligan v Coffs Harbour City Council (2005) 223 CLR 486, per Gleeson CJ and Kirby J at 491; Thompson v Woolworths (Qld) Pty Ltd (2005) 79 ALJR 904; Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540; Roman Catholic Church Trustees for the Diocese of Canberra v Hadba (2005) 221 CLR 161; R v Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45; English Exporters Pty Ltd v Eldonwall [1973] 1 Ch 415; PQ v Australian Red Cross Society [1992] 1 VR 19 at 36; R v Abadom [1983] 1 WLR 126; Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd [1971] 17 FLR 141 at 161; BI (Contracting) Pty Ltd v University of Adelaide [2008] NSWCA 210; Trevorrow v SA (2007) 98 SASR 136; F v R (1984) 33 SASR 189 at 194; Thompson v Johnson & Johnson Pty Ltd [1991] 2 VR 449 at 494; Julia Farr Services v Hayes [2003] NSWCA 37; Cockatoo Dockyard v Browne (2001) 21 NSWCCR 544; Gray v Motor Accident Commission (1998) 196 CLR 1; Uren v John Fairfax and Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118; XL Petroleum (NSW) Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 155 CLR 448; Abel v Amaca Pty Ltd [2010] SADC 98; Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998)…

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 Parker v BHP Billiton Ltd

Details

AGLC: Parker v BHP Billiton Ltd [2011] SADC 104
Case: [2011] SADC 104
Decision Date: 18 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Parker, sought damages from BHP Billiton Ltd, a mining company, due to injuries sustained while working at a mine operated by the defendant. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Parker alleged that the defendant's negligence caused his injuries, which included physical harm resulting from a fall in a poorly lit area of the mine. The defendant denied liability, arguing that they had taken reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their employees.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and whether the defendant breached that duty. The court also needed to determine if the plaintiff's injuries were reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defendant's actions or omissions. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had a duty to provide adequate lighting and safety measures, which were lacking at the site of the accident. The defendant contended that they had implemented adequate safety protocols and that the plaintiff's injuries were not a foreseeable consequence of their actions.

The court held that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to provide a safe working environment. The court found that the lighting in the area where the plaintiff was injured was inadequate, and this was a breach of the duty of care. The court further found that the plaintiff's injuries were reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defendant's failure to provide adequate lighting. Consequently, the court found in favour of the plaintiff, awarding him damages for his injuries.

The court ordered BHP Billiton Ltd to pay the plaintiff compensation for his injuries, along with costs of the proceedings. The precise amount of damages was to be determined in a subsequent proceeding.

Orders