operations were within prescribed limits and lawful, and the
amount of lead capable of inhalation and ingestion was negligible
› whether the defendants owed the plaintiff and other members of the community in Mount Isa a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid a risk of injury that was reasonably foreseeable and not insignificant
Torts
› NEGLIGENCE
› STANDARD OF CARE, SCOPE OF DUTY AND SUBSEQUENT BREACH
› GENERALLY
Quick Take
1A mining operator that complied with all statutory emission limits, maintained comprehensive air quality monitoring, and actively participated in government-led public health campaigns including blood lead testing and health messaging was not shown to have breached a duty of care to warn community residents of lead exposure risks, where the combined coverage, advertising and promotional activities were found to be significant and ongoing.
2Where a plaintiff's cognitive impairment resulted from both a pre-existing condition (Iron Deficiency Anaemia) and the alleged tortious exposure (lead poisoning), the court must assess the ISV under s 7 of Schedule 3 of the Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld) by reference only to the extent the pre-existing condition was made worse by the injury, and a further discount for the pre-existing condition on top of that assessment constitutes an impermissible double-discount.
3Expert opinion evidence on the adequacy of a public health campaign was rejected where the expert lacked experience in analogous campaigns, based opinions on an incomplete review of the campaign materials, adopted an analytical framework beyond the plaintiff's pleaded case, and demonstrated a lack of precision and responsiveness under cross-examination.
Case Details
Citation[2023] QSC 188
CourtQSC
JurisdictionQueensland
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
