Amaca Pty Ltd v Goodyear Australia Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDDT 6

Amaca Pty Ltd v Goodyear Australia Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDDT 6

James Hardie's (Amaca's) contamination exposure caused to Mr Tarrant greatly exceeded Goodyear's insulation exposure. James Hardie had actual knowledge of the risks from neighbourhood asbestos exposure and failed to take available precautions or warn Goodyear, constituting a greater culpable departure from the standard of care. As such, it is just and equitable that Amaca/James Hardie bear 75% of responsibility, and Goodyear bear 25%.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Cross Claim for Contribution (tort) / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Apportionment of contribution determined: Amaca (James Hardie) 75%, Goodyear 25%; further orders to be submitted and costs to be determined if not agreed.
Legal Topics
['contribution Between Joint and Several Tortfeasors' 'apportionment of Liability' "employer's Duty of Care" 'liability for Asbestos Exposure' 'mesothelioma' 'bystander and Neighbourhood Exposure']
['torts' 'negligence' 'workplace Health and Safety'] ['contribution Between Joint and Several Tortfeasors' 'apportionment of Liability' "employer's Duty of Care" 'liability for Asbestos Exposure' 'mesothelioma' 'bystander and Neighbourhood Exposure']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Cross Claim for Contribution (tort) / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What is the appropriate just and equitable apportionment of liability between Amaca Pty Ltd (James Hardie) and Goodyear Australia Pty Ltd for Mr Tarrant's mesothelioma-related damage under s 5(2) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946?"]

Ratio Decidendi

James Hardie's (Amaca's) contamination exposure caused to Mr Tarrant greatly exceeded Goodyear's insulation exposure. James Hardie had actual knowledge of the risks from neighbourhood asbestos exposure and failed to take available precautions or warn Goodyear, constituting a greater culpable departure from the standard of care. As such, it is just and equitable that Amaca/James Hardie bear 75% of responsibility, and Goodyear bear 25%.

Court Disposition

Apportionment of contribution determined: Amaca (James Hardie) 75%, Goodyear 25%; further orders to be submitted and costs to be determined if not agreed.

Orders

  • ["Amaca Pty Ltd (James Hardie) should be 75% responsible and Goodyear 25% responsible for Mr Tarrant's damage." 'Parties to provide Short Minutes of Order to my Associate within 7 days to give effect to findings and address costs.' 'Court will hear the parties on costs if no agreement is reached.']