Father Robert McNeill v Seltsam Pty Limited [2005] NSWDDT 43

Father Robert McNeill v Seltsam Pty Limited [2005] NSWDDT 43

The defendant owed a duty of care to end users of its asbestos cement sheeting, including the plaintiff, as the risks from asbestos were known or should have been known by 1961. The failure to warn end users about the dangers of inhaling asbestos dust constituted a breach of that duty. The plaintiff's light exposure during home renovations was a material cause of his mesothelioma. Had a proper warning been given, the plaintiff would not have used the product. Judgment is for the plaintiff with damages assessed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'duty to Warn' 'foreseeability' 'dust Diseases' 'manufacturer’s Duty' 'damages']
['torts' 'product Liability' 'personal Injury'] ['negligence' 'duty to Warn' 'foreseeability' 'dust Diseases' 'manufacturer’s Duty' 'damages']

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

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did the defendant owe a duty of care to the plaintiff as an end user of asbestos cement sheeting?' 'Was there a foreseeable risk of injury in 1961 from using asbestos cement sheeting?' 'Did the defendant breach its duty by failing to warn?' 'Did the defendant’s breach cause the plaintiff’s mesothelioma?' 'What is the appropriate assessment of damages?']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant owed a duty of care to end users of its asbestos cement sheeting, including the plaintiff, as the risks from asbestos were known or should have been known by 1961. The failure to warn end users about the dangers of inhaling asbestos dust constituted a breach of that duty. The plaintiff's light exposure during home renovations was a material cause of his mesothelioma. Had a proper warning been given, the plaintiff would not have used the product. Judgment is for the plaintiff with damages assessed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $205,115.95.' "Order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs."]