Bale v Seltsam Pty Ltd

From Uni Study Guides
Jump to: navigation, search

Citation: [1996[ qca 288

This information can be found in the Textbook: Sappideen, Vines, Grant & Watson, Torts: Commentary and Materials (Lawbook Co, 10th ed, 2009), p. 209

Contents

Background facts

  • Appellant's husband worked for Respondent (a company).
  • He would often come back from work with asbestos dust all over his clothing and all over his car.
  • The Appellant was obviously exposed to this asbestos dust when she washed his clothes or drove in his car, and she developed malignant mesothelioma as a result.
  • The Appellant sued the Respondent for negligence.

Legal issues

Judgment

Majority opinion:

  • The court ruled that "at the relevant time that consequence [Appellant's injury] was, having regard to the state of scientific knowledge on the subject not reasonably foreseeable."

Dissenting opinion:

  • "The respondent ought to have known, at least by the end of 1963, that there was a risk amongst the unidentified and unknown possible toxic effects of asbestos dust was injurty to those, such as wives, who are exposed to it."

References

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox