Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Rise or Demise of Take-Home Asbestos Exposure Claims?
For years, practitioners and courts in several jurisdictions have actively debated the existence and scope of duty that may be owed by product manufacturers and premises owners to persons exposed to asbestos fibers brought home on the work clothing of family members. The introduction of secondary or “take-home” exposure claims has extended asbestos litigation to a new generation of potential plaintiffs and has premises and manufacturing defendants reeling over the concept that duty of care may now extend to unknown persons who have never stepped foot on a worksite or used an asbestos-containing product. Thus, it comes as no surprise that these “take-home” claims and the extension of duty from the worksite into the family home have been the subject of much litigation and disagreement among trial and appellate courts, not only over the legal viability of the claim itself, but also difficult issues such as defining the scope of duty and identifying potential plaintiffs based on familial relationships.
For example, in New Jersey, the Supreme Court in Olivo v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 186 N.J. 394 (2006), ruled that premises owners owe a duty to spouses based on the foreseeable risk of exposure from asbestos fibers brought home on work clothing. The Court of Appeals of Maryland, however, decided that product manufacturers owe no duty to take-home plaintiffs because the dangers of asbestos exposure were not known until at least 1972, and as such, the dangers of take-home exposure could not have been foreseeable before this time. See Georgia Pacific v. Farrar, 432 Md. 523 (Md. Ct. App. 2013). New York, on the other hand, has framed the debate differently, focusing primarily on the existence of a duty, rather than the foreseeability of harm. In Matter of NYC Asbestos Litigation, 5 N.Y.3d 486 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005), the state's highest court declined to extend an employer's duty to provide a safe workplace to the spouse of an employee, because, as a threshold issue, this would open up property owners to potential “limitless liability” for exposure that occurred off-site and to persons with whom the employer does not have a relationship.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
New York's Latest Cybersecurity Commitment
On Aug. 9, 2023, Gov. Kathy Hochul introduced New York's inaugural comprehensive cybersecurity strategy. In sum, the plan aims to update government networks, bolster county-level digital defenses, and regulate critical infrastructure.
Law Firms are Reducing Redundant Real Estate by Bringing Support Services Back to the Office
A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.
Bit Parts
Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights
How AI Has Affected PR
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.