Long term exposure to asbestos satisfies test for causation

Background In Booth v Amaca Pty Ltd and Amaba Pty Ltd,1 the New South Wales Dust Diseases Tribunal awarded a retired motor mechanic $326 640 in damages for his malignant pleural mesothelioma allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos through working with the brake linings manufactured by the defendants. The evidence before the Tribunal was that the plaintiff had been exposed to asbestos prior to working as a mechanic from home renovations when he was a child and loading a truck as a youth. However, as a mechanic he had been exposed to asbestos in brake linings on which he worked from 1953 to 1983. Curtis DCJ held at [172] that the asbestos from the brake linings ‘materially contributed to [the plaintiff’s] contraction of mesothelioma’. This decision was based upon acceptance that the effect of exposure to asbestos on the development of mesothelioma was cumulative and rejection of theory that a single fibre of asbestos can cause the disease...

High court determines that it cannot be assumed that hot chips are only eaten at lunch

In Strong v Woolworth Ltd (t/as Big W) (2012) 285 ALR 420 the appellant was injured when she fell at a shopping centre outside the respondent’s premises. The appellant was disabled, having had her right leg amputated above the knee and therefore walked with crutches. One of the crutches came into contact with a hot potato chip which was on the floor, causing the crutch to slip and the appellant to fall. The appellant sued in negligence, alleging that the respondent was in breach of its duty of care by failing to institute and maintain a cleaning system to detect spillages and foreign objects within its sidewalk sales area. The issue before the High Court was whether it could be established on the balance of probabilities as to when the hot chip had fallen onto the ground so as to prove causation in fact...

Full compensation no longer sacrosanct : reflections on the past and future economic loss ‘cap’ for high income earners

The civil liability provisions relating to the assessment of damages for past and future economic loss have abrogated the common law principle of full compensation by imposing restrictions on the damages award, most commonly by a “three times average weekly earnings” cap. This consideration of the impact of those provisions is informed by a case study of the Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal decision, Tuohey v Freemasons Hospital (Tuohey) , which addressed the construction and arithmetic operation of the Victorian cap for high income earners. While conclusions as to operation of the cap outside of Victoria can be drawn from Tuohey, a number of issues await judicial determination. These issues, which include the impact of the damages caps on the calculation of damages for economic loss in the circumstances of fluctuating income; vicissitudes; contributory negligence; claims per quod servitum amisit; and claims by dependants, are identified and potential resolutions discussed.

Compensation for lost services of an employee : pure economic loss and per quod action

Under the common law an employer may take action against a defendant for the loss of an employee’s services due to the act of the defendant (per quod servitium amisit - by reason of which the services were lost). The High Court has recently affirmed the existence of this ancient tort in Barclay v Penberthy [2012] HCA 40.

Howzat! The High Court, negligence and indoor cricket

This article examines the High Court case of Woods v Multi-Sport that considers the liability of an indoor cricket centre for an injury sustained by a player. It is a good example of how the issue of breach is dealt with in a sports law context and also shows how difficult it can be to determine when a sporting body will in breach of a duty of care owed to its participants.

Cattanach v Melchior : babies, blessings and burdens

This article considers the High Court decision of Cattanach v Melchior, which permitted the recovery of damages for the cost of raising a child born through medical negligence. It discusses the reasoning in each of the judgments and seeks to identify themes so as to explain the divide between the majority and minority. It also considers the impact of legislative intervention in Queensland and New South Wales.

Legal practitioners’ negligence liability for claim investigation and advice

Nigam v Harm (No 2) [2011] WASCA 221, Western Australia Court of Appeal, 18 October 2011

Wrongful birth : assessment of damages in 2013

More than 10 years have passed since the High Court of Australia confirmed the recoverability of damages for the cost of raising a child, in the well-known decision in Cattanach v Melchior. Yet a number of aspects of the assessment of such “wrongful birth” damages had not been the subject of a comprehensive court ruling. The recent decision in Waller v James was widely anticipated as potentially providing a comprehensive discussion of the principles relevant to the assessment of damages in wrongful birth cases. However, given a finding on causation adverse to the plaintiffs, the trial judge held that it was unnecessary to determine the quantum of damages. Justice Hislop did, however, make some comments in relation to the assessment of damages. This article focuses mostly on the argued damages issues relating to the costs of raising the child and the trial judge’s comments regarding the same. The Waller v James claim was issued before the enactment of the Health Care Liability Act 2001 (NSW) and the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). Although the case was therefore decided according to the “common law”, as explained below, his Honour’s comments may be of relevance to more recent claims governed by the civil liability legislation in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia.