Putt v James Hardie & Co

Putt v James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Mr. Putt, sought to recover damages for personal injury allegedly sustained as a result of his exposure to asbestos products manufactured by the respondent, James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on whether the respondent owed a duty of care to the appellant and, if so, whether that duty had been breached.

The High Court was required to determine whether James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd owed a duty of care to Mr. Putt, who had been exposed to asbestos during his employment as a painter. Specifically, the court considered the scope of the duty owed by a manufacturer of potentially dangerous products to those who might foreseeably be injured by those products, even if the exposure occurred in circumstances not directly controlled by the manufacturer. The court also had to assess whether the respondent had taken reasonable steps to warn users of the dangers associated with its asbestos products.

The High Court, in a joint judgment by Gleeson CJ and Gaudron J, affirmed that a manufacturer of a product which, to their knowledge, is dangerous if used in a certain way, owes a duty to warn of that danger. This duty extends to persons who might foreseeably use the product in that way, even if the manufacturer has no control over the manner of use. The court found that James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd knew, or ought to have known, of the dangers of asbestos and the potential for exposure during its use as a building material. The court concluded that the respondent had failed to take reasonable steps to warn users of these dangers, and therefore had breached its duty of care to Mr. Putt. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for assessment of damages.