Taylor v Amaca and Ors [2002] NSWDDT 29

Taylor v Amaca and Ors [2002] NSWDDT 29

The Tribunal accepted the plaintiff's evidence of asbestos exposure, found that products supplied by the first defendant and activities of agents of the second, third and fourth defendants caused exposure, and held that each defendant owed and breached a duty to protect and warn the plaintiff. The mesothelioma was found to have resulted from that exposure. Damages were assessed on the basis that the plaintiff was likely to live until the end of July 2002, would require hospital or hospice care from 29 May 2002 to 30 July 2002, and was entitled to the assessed heads of damage totalling $247,390.90.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Dust Diseases Personal Injury Action for Mesothelioma Damages Arising From Asbestos Exposure / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing; Liability Was Not Pressed in Submissions and Damages Were Assessed
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against each defendant in the sum of $247,390.90, with costs.
Legal Topics
['asbestos Exposure' 'mesothelioma' 'negligence' 'duty of Care' 'assessment of Damages' 'griffiths V Kerkemeyer Damages' 'loss of Expectation of Life']
['torts' 'personal Injury' 'dust Diseases' 'employer and Employee'] ['asbestos Exposure' 'mesothelioma' 'negligence' 'duty of Care' 'assessment of Damages' 'griffiths V Kerkemeyer Damages' 'loss of Expectation of Life']

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

Dust Diseases Personal Injury Action for Mesothelioma Damages Arising From Asbestos Exposure / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing; Liability Was Not Pressed in Submissions and Damages Were Assessed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff was exposed by each defendant to the inhalation of asbestos dust and fibre.' 'Whether each defendant owed and breached a duty of care to protect the plaintiff from asbestos exposure and warn of its dangers.' 'What damages should be awarded for mesothelioma, including general damages, loss of expectation of life, out of pocket expenses, care, hospitalisation and interest.' 'What life expectancy should be adopted for the assessment of future loss and expenses.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal accepted the plaintiff's evidence of asbestos exposure, found that products supplied by the first defendant and activities of agents of the second, third and fourth defendants caused exposure, and held that each defendant owed and breached a duty to protect and warn the plaintiff. The mesothelioma was found to have resulted from that exposure. Damages were assessed on the basis that the plaintiff was likely to live until the end of July 2002, would require hospital or hospice care from 29 May 2002 to 30 July 2002, and was entitled to the assessed heads of damage totalling $247,390.90.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against each defendant in the sum of $247,390.90, with costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against each of the defendants in the sum of $247,390.90.' "The defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs." 'Cross-claims for mention 22 April 2002.']