A Supreme Court jury has awarded a former machinist $1.15 million in compensation for mesothelioma contracted after visiting a Perth asbestos sheeting factory.
Eric King, 62, worked at the Welshpool factory in 1972 – by which time James Hardie was well aware of the dangers of exposure to asbestos but failed to warn Mr King or to provide him with safety equipment.
It is the first asbestos-related case to go to trial before a jury since 1988 and the record payout, which included $730,000 for pain and suffering, has been hailed as a reflection of the community’s stance on asbestos.
Mr King’s lawyer, Andrew Dimsey said he hoped the verdict would add weight to the cause of others fighting for asbestos-related compensation.
“It is important that six community members felt that was an appropriate amount (of compensation). It is more than double any previous award by the courts,” Mr Dimsey said.
“If a jury says that amount is appropriate, then my view is that their view counts across the nation. I would expect that if any other plaintiffs were to follow suit, they should be mindful that for this same illness another Australian was awarded $730,000.”
Mr King, who now lives in Tasmania, conducted maintenance on an asbestos sheeting machine on three occasions but, due to the long latency period of the disease, was not diagnosed with the terminal cancer until last year.
For many years asbestos compensation cases have been routinely settled out of court, but Mr Dimsey said that James Hardie had been buoyed by several recent victories won on the basis that causation of mesothelioma via contact with Hardie products had not been proved.
“Their line of defence is that the mesothelioma was not caused by their products but by exposure to asbestos from daily life, living and breathing it in the community. They (James Hardie) were gaining confidence that this approach was going to be useful to them,” he said.
“The significance of this case is that it holds the line on the impact of all asbestos exposure. It is not a great leap forward but an important part of the defence against the erosion of the fact that asbestos causes mesothelioma.”
He was seeing an increasing number of mesothelioma cases caused by “low-dose” exposure.
“As it turns out, as time is passing, there are more and more cases from smaller and smaller amounts of exposure to asbestos. Ten to 15 years ago, occupational exposure was the general profile of cases, but that profile has shifted. I used to have an occasional client who was a woman. Now just under 50 per cent of my current clients are women, some of whom have just worked or lived in place that was being renovated.”
By Catherine Madden