Bale v Seltsam P/L

In the context of asbestos litigation, reasonable foreseeability of injury from low-dose domestic exposure to asbestos dust requires that the state of scientific knowledge at the relevant time be such as to alert a reasonable person to the risk; the mere existence of scientific uncertainty about the toxic effects of a known dangerous substance is not, without more, sufficient to ground a duty of care to persons exposed to low doses. The dissent by Fitzgerald P articulates an alternative view that where a substance is known to be extremely toxic and there is scientific uncertainty about the level of exposure that may cause harm, the risk inherent in that uncertainty cannot be dismissed as far-fetched or fanciful.