While the links between asbestos and mesothelioma are now well known, the use of the material in buildings and manufacturing was commonplace just forty years ago. Workers who were exposed to the material decades ago may still experience severe health problems and may have legal recourse as a result. One recent case, however, dealt with the question of who exactly could take action against a company that exposed former workers to asbestos. Do companies owe a duty to the workers’ families, who might come into contact with asbestos brought home on workers’ clothes? How about individuals who don’t live at that house, but visit regularly?
Essentially, how far down the chain of contamination can you still reasonably blame a company for asbestos-related health problems?
The Alcoa plant in Tennessee recently argued against a case involving the daughter-in-law of a former worker, John Millsaps. Dating his son at the time Millsaps was working in the environment that exposed him to asbestos Brenda Millsaps fell ill with mesothelioma decades later, and died as a result. Alcoa questioned the woman’s eligibility for compensation on four fronts, pushing for summary judgment. Their challenge asserted that:
Attorneys working for the decedent successfully argued against these points. While Alcoa asserted that the lack of preserved lung tissue was in fact tantamount to destroying evidence, the presiding judge, Judge Robreno, found that they had failed to present evidence of any deliberate acts constituting destruction. He also found that there was not, in fact, any impetus under Tennessee law to preserve lung tissue in the first place – an important ruling for future cases involving patients who have already died.
On the issue of household duty, Alcoa argued that the decedent did not live with Millsaps and so no duty was owed by the company. The court found, however, that under the earlier Tennessee case of Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Co., 266 S.W.3d 347 (Tenn. 2008), duty could still be owed for non-residents. “Nothing in Satterfield requires that a person subjected to ‘take home’ asbestos exposure be a resident of the same household as the Defendant’s employee in order for there to be a duty of care wed by the Defendant to that person. Rather, Satterfield specifically holds that the class of ‘foreseeable’ people to whom a Defendant such as Alcoa owes a duty includes ‘persons who regularly and for extended periods of time came into close contact with the asbestos-contaminated work clothes of Alcoa’s employees,’” said Judge Robreno.
Regarding quantifiable levels of asbestos, the judge also added that “nothing in Satterfield requires Plaintiff to present evidence of asbestos levels in relation to OSHA standards, or to provide epidemiological studies showing that certain classes of workers (or their household members) were at risk of being exposed to asbestos.” The court also found that “[Alcoa] has failed to identify any source requiring Plaintiff to establish the amount of asbestos released from products with which John Millsaps works. It is clear from Satterfield that there is no such requirement and that, in fact, an employee need not have brought home asbestos from a product with which he or she directly worked.”
Speaking on the issue of contamination by proxy, the court also found that “Plaintiff has identified sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Decedent was exposed to respirable asbestos brought home from the Alcoa facility on the clothes of John Millsaps (including from products with which he worked).”
This ruling is an important step in the efforts of individuals and their loved ones to seek compensation for asbestos-related injuries. The complicated process of proving a duty of care is owed is only compounded when the individual in question is deceased. For those affected by asbestos and, now, those affected indirectly, the ruling is a step in the right direction.
About the Author
Christopher M. Placitella is an attorney at Cohen, Placitella and Roth P.C. and a leading authority on class actions, mass torts, and asbestos-related injury. A member of the plaintiff’s bar, Mr. Placitella previously established a national asbestos litigation group, and has garnered a reputation as a successful and knowledgeable representative of individuals suffering asbestos-related diseases
Originally published on LawyerCentral by Christopher Placitella on August 27, 2013 Read the original (Internet Archive).