Wood vs Merck Sharpe [2005] NSWDDT 61

Wood vs Merck Sharpe [2005] NSWDDT 61

Exposure to methyldopa dust can rarely cause occupational asthma, and the 1979 British Medical Journal report made that risk foreseeable. The defendant breached its common law duty as employer by failing to give an appropriate warning to the plaintiff and by failing to instruct its medical centre staff to be alert to respiratory symptoms in workers exposed to methyldopa. The plaintiff was significantly exposed to methyldopa dust, particularly during stripping, cleaning and changing dust collection bags without a mask, and that exposure caused his occupational asthma. The plaintiff did not prove breach of s 41(2) of the Factories Shops and Industries Act 1962, and the defendant did not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Occupational Asthma Workplace Injury Claim in Negligence and Breach of Statutory Duty / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $266,436.95, with costs.
Legal Topics
['occupational Asthma' 'employer Duty of Care' 'safe Place and System of Work' 'breach of Statutory Duty' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'damages']
['tort Law' 'employment Law' 'workplace Injury' 'dust Diseases and Occupational Disease'] ['occupational Asthma' 'employer Duty of Care' 'safe Place and System of Work' 'breach of Statutory Duty' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' '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

Occupational Asthma Workplace Injury Claim in Negligence and Breach of Statutory Duty / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether exposure to methyldopa dust can cause occupational asthma.' "Whether the plaintiff contracted occupational asthma as a result of exposure to methyldopa dust in the defendant's workplace." 'Whether the defendant breached its common law duty to provide a safe place and system of work by failing to warn the plaintiff and instruct medical centre staff about the risk.' 'Whether the defendant breached s 41(2) of the Factories Shops and Industries Act 1962.' 'Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence by failing to wear a mask during some tasks.' "What damages should be awarded, including the effect of the plaintiff's smoking-related lung disease."]

Ratio Decidendi

Exposure to methyldopa dust can rarely cause occupational asthma, and the 1979 British Medical Journal report made that risk foreseeable. The defendant breached its common law duty as employer by failing to give an appropriate warning to the plaintiff and by failing to instruct its medical centre staff to be alert to respiratory symptoms in workers exposed to methyldopa. The plaintiff was significantly exposed to methyldopa dust, particularly during stripping, cleaning and changing dust collection bags without a mask, and that exposure caused his occupational asthma. The plaintiff did not prove breach of s 41(2) of the Factories Shops and Industries Act 1962, and the defendant did not...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $266,436.95, with costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $266,436.95.' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs."]