Share this e-Alert:

Polsinelli - Toxic and Mass Tort Polsinelli - Toxic and Mass Tort Polsinelli - Toxic and Mass Tort Polsinelli - Toxic and Mass Tort Polsinelli - Toxic and Mass Tort Polsinelli - Toxic and Mass Tort Polsinelli - Toxic and Mass Tort
         
 

September 2016

 

"Take-Home" Asbestos Case Decision Could have Ripple Effect

 
 
             
 

For more information about this e-Alert, please contact:

 

Dennis J. Dobbels

816.360.4312

Email | Bio

  

Luke J. Mangan

314.552.6869

Email | Bio

  

  

To learn more about our Toxic and Mass Tort practice, to contact one of our Toxic and Mass Tort attorneys, or for more Toxic and Mass Tort Intelligence, click here.

 

  


Polsinelli - Toxic and Mass Tort Polsinelli - Toxic and Mass Tort Polsinelli - Toxic and Mass Tort Polsinelli - Toxic and Mass Tort View Polsinelli documents on JD Supra  

SUBSCRIBE

LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Polsinelli Podcast
   

Companies facing "take-home" asbestos or other toxic tort exposure claims in Arizona, or in other jurisdictions applying Arizona law, now have a new case to cite in dispositive motions. With the Sept. 20 Arizona Court of Appeals decision in Quiroz v. Alcoa, Inc., Arizona recently joined the list of states that have refused to allow claims for "take-home" asbestos exposures.

In the ruling, the Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's ruling granting a defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in a case in which plaintiffs alleged their decedent contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos via his father's work at defendant's factory. Plaintiffs claimed decedent's father brought asbestos dust home on his clothing after working with asbestos-containing products at defendant's factory and that this "take-home" exposure caused decedent's mesothelioma.

In a case of first impression in Arizona, the Court found that a premises owner owes no duty to the child of an employee in such "take-home" asbestos exposure cases.

In considering the issue, the Court distinguished Arizona law from other states, in that Arizona does not consider foreseeability of injury in determining whether a defendant owes a plaintiff a duty of care. The Court likewise declined to apply the Restatement (Second and Third) of Torts, Sections 371 and 54 respectively, finding that such application would "substantially change Arizona's long-standing conceptual approach to negligence law by effectively eliminating duty as one of the require elements of a negligence claim…"  Id. at 5..

The Court also rejected Plaintiff's argument that finding no duty in "take-home" cases would violate public policy considerations. In doing so, the Court expressed concern over the potential for limitless liability for defendants, stating:

We share this concern because, as noted above, Appellants offer no way to limit the duty they seek either to employees' family members or to asbestos exposure. Absent these constraints, any company that made or used a potentially hazardous substance could be liable to anyone who ever came into contact with an employee who arguably could have carried said hazardous substance off-site. Such a dramatic expansion of liability would not be compatible with public policy.  Id. at 13-14 (internal citations omitted).

While Quiroz addressed "take-home" exposure with respect to a premises owner and is silent as to claims against product manufacturers, the Court's reasoning finding no duty exists should arguably apply to both types of defendants.

Other state courts have likewise indicated, to varying degrees, that no duty to warn exists for "take-home" exposures. This majority trend includes decisions from Georgia, New York, Michigan, Texas, Maryland, Iowa, Ohio and Delaware. California appellate courts are split, though the California Supreme Court is expected to rule on the issue soon. An Illinois appellate court has ruled that an employer owed no duty to warn of "take-home" exposures before 1964, when the first study on the issue was published. See Holmes v. Pneumo Abex, et al., 55 N.E.2d 1173 (Ill.App. 4th 2011).

For More Information

For more information about this opinion, the recent trial or other legal issues, please contact your Polsinelli attorney or the authors.

 
             

             
 

Atlanta  Boston  Chattanooga  Chicago  Dallas  Denver  Houston  Kansas City  Los Angeles  Nashville  New York
Overland Park  Phoenix  Raleigh  San Francisco  Silicon Valley  St. Joseph  St. Louis  Washington, D.C.  Wilmington
polsinelli.com

 
             
 
 

ABOUT POLSINELLI

real challenges. real answers.SM  
Polsinelli is an Am Law 100 firm with more than 800 attorneys in 20 offices, serving corporations, institutions, and entrepreneurs nationally. Ranked in the top five percent of law firms for client service*, the firm has risen more than 50 spots over the past five years in the Am Law 100 annual law firm ranking. Polsinelli attorneys provide practical legal counsel infused with business insight, and focus on health care, financial services, real estate, intellectual property, mid-market corporate, and business litigation. Polsinelli attorneys have depth of experience in 100 service areas and 70 industries. The firm can be found online at www.polsinelli.com. Polsinelli PC. In California, Polsinelli LLP.

* 2016 BTI Client Service A-Team Report

 
 
             
 

Polsinelli provides this material for informational purposes only. The material provided herein is general and is not intended to be legal advice. Polsinelli is very proud of the results we obtain for our clients, but you should know that past results do not guarantee future results; that every case is different and must be judged on its own merits; and that the choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Copyright © 2016 Polsinelli PC.

 
             
Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Polsinelli Toxic and Mass Tort Toxic and Mass Tort