Hutton v Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd [2005] NSWDDT 67

Hutton v Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd [2005] NSWDDT 67

The materially significant asbestos exposures causing the plaintiff's asbestosis occurred during his second period of employment with the first defendant and during his employment with the second defendant. The intermittent exposure at Stewarts and Lloyds was not shown to be material. The plaintiff's severe disability and limited life expectancy were attributable to asbestosis caused by those wrongful exposures, and other medical conditions were not shown with sufficient precision to reduce the damages assessment. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to verdict and judgment against both defendants, apportioned 75 per cent to the first defendant and 25 per cent to the second defendant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Action for Damages for Negligent Asbestos Exposure in Employment / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $168,560, with liability apportioned 75 per cent to the first defendant and 25 per cent to the second defendant.
Legal Topics
['asbestos Exposure' 'asbestosis' 'employer Liability' 'causation and Material Contribution' 'assessment of Damages' 'past Care' 'future Care' 'apportionment']
['torts' 'negligence' 'dust Diseases' 'personal Injury' 'employment'] ['asbestos Exposure' 'asbestosis' 'employer Liability' 'causation and Material Contribution' 'assessment of Damages' 'past Care' 'future Care' 'apportionment']

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

Action for Damages for Negligent Asbestos Exposure in Employment / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos dust and fibre during his employments with the defendants and whether that exposure materially contributed to his asbestosis.' "Whether exposure during employment with Stewarts and Lloyds was material and should reduce or affect the defendants' liability for damages." 'How damages should be assessed for general damages, loss of expectation of life, past care and future care, including whether other medical conditions should be taken into account.' 'How liability should be apportioned between the first and second defendants.']

Ratio Decidendi

The materially significant asbestos exposures causing the plaintiff's asbestosis occurred during his second period of employment with the first defendant and during his employment with the second defendant. The intermittent exposure at Stewarts and Lloyds was not shown to be material. The plaintiff's severe disability and limited life expectancy were attributable to asbestosis caused by those wrongful exposures, and other medical conditions were not shown with sufficient precision to reduce the damages assessment. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to verdict and judgment against both defendants, apportioned 75 per cent to the first defendant and 25 per cent to the second defendant.

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $168,560, with liability apportioned 75 per cent to the first defendant and 25 per cent to the second defendant.

Orders

  • ['There will be verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $168,560.' "The defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs." 'The sum payable in respect of future care is to be deferred until a determination by the Dust Diseases Board in respect of the future services they may provide.' 'Liberty is granted to...