ipl-logo

James Hardie Banton Asbestos Case

1061 Words5 Pages

Asbestos, according to Betterhealth.vic.gov.au, is a naturally occurring heart and flame resistant. Having contact with this chemical can lead to a variety of illnesses, including asbestosis, lung cancer and a cancer called mesothelioma. Bernie Baton, who was a lathe operator at James Hardie Co & Pty Ltd, which is an industrial building materials company, was working with this chemical from 1968 to 1974 without his awareness. Eventually, Bernie Banton was diagnosed with asbestosis in 1999. James Hardie was fully aware of the dangers asbestosis can cause, but ignored the facts and didn’t do anything about it; rather he continued to use it in his products and didn’t inform any employees of asbestosis’ risks. James Hardie’s negligence led to Bernie …show more content…

Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, it states “The employer must ensure the health, safety and welfare of their employees when at work by: ensuring that any places that are controlled by the employer are safe and without risks to health…., ensuring the safe and proper use, handling, storage and transport of plants and substances provided for use by employees”, and there was many more dot points listed. James Hardie breached the duty of care in which he owed to his employees, including Bernie Banton. James Hardie could have informed his workers that they were handling asbestos, and he could have provided them with personal protective equipment to prevent the employees from inhaling asbestos. Bernie Banton had the right to be protected and had the right to have been advised that he was working with asbestos. His rights were infringed, and so were all of James Hardie’s employees, when James Hardie decided to keep the risks of asbestos confidential. If these laws weren’t around at the time that Banton was working, he would not have been able to take the case to court, because James Hardie wouldn’t have had a duty to protect his employees. But, these laws were around, so this meant that Banton could take the case to court, in which he did. Not only did these laws encourage Banton to go to court, but so did the fact that now he, and many other James Hardie employees, had to live with …show more content…

Individuals who were working in the asbestos mine didn’t like that Banton was taking this to court as they could have lost their jobs if Banton’s case was successful, and the asbestos mine shut down. Whereas many individuals who were on Banton’s side and who were affected by James Hardie believed that all people who have been injured because of someone’s carelessness, should be rewarded with compensation from the negligent person. And those people also believed that making a company liable also helps to guarantee that they are more careful in their actions that could possibly hurt another person. After Banton was diagnosed in 1999 for asbestosis, he instantly knew that this disease was linked to when he was working as a lathe operator at James Hardie. Banton sued James Hardie, and received 800,000 dollars in compensation in an out-of-court settlement, which was taken place the morning before Banton’s trial. This settlement helped bring notice to the many other claims that were being taken against James Hardie. Banton didn’t stop there. He kept campaigning against James Hardie, bringing attention to asbestos-related diseases. As time went on, Banton found out more about what happened to his fellow workers, which only angered him even more, and pushed him to become an impassioned individual who was the voice

Open Document