Establishing Duty of Care for Employers and Premises Owners to Prevent Take-Home Asbestos Exposure for Household Members

Establishing Duty of Care for Employers and Premises Owners to Prevent Take-Home Asbestos Exposure for Household Members

Introduction

The CECILIA KESNER, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY case, decided by the Supreme Court of California on December 1, 2016, addresses pivotal questions regarding the legal obligations of employers and premises owners in preventing the secondary exposure of asbestos to employees' household members. The plaintiffs, representing household members of workers exposed to asbestos, contended that the defendants failed to exercise due care, resulting in serious health consequences.

Summary of the Judgment

The California Supreme Court held that both employers and premises owners have a duty of ordinary care to prevent take-home asbestos exposure carried by employees' bodies and clothing. This duty extends specifically to members of the employees' households, recognizing the foreseeability of such harm. The court reversed lower court decisions that had previously dismissed these claims, thereby establishing a significant precedent in negligence and premises liability law concerning environmental and occupational health hazards.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references key precedents, notably:

  • ROWLAND v. CHRISTIAN (1968): Established the general duty of care and the factors influencing duty determination in negligence cases.
  • Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012): Addressed the absence of duty to protect family members from secondary asbestos exposure, which the current case overturns.
  • Beacon Residential Community Assn. v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (2014): Discussed the elements of negligence and duty of care.
  • Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of California (1976): Emphasized the importance of foreseeability in establishing duty.
  • LUGTU v. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL (2001): Clarified duty concerning third-party conduct and foreseeability.

The court distinguished prior cases like Campbell and ODDONE v. SUPERIOR COURT, arguing that the foreseeability and policy considerations in Kesner and Haver merit a different outcome, thereby expanding the scope of duty beyond what these cases previously held.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on the foreseeability of harm and the application of the Rowland factors. It determined that:

  • Foreseeability: It was reasonably foreseeable that asbestos fibers could be carried home by employees, leading to exposure of household members.
  • Certainty of Injury: The plaintiffs could demonstrate that their injuries (mesothelioma) were directly linked to asbestos exposure.
  • Closeness of Connection: The link between the defendants' handling of asbestos and the plaintiffs' exposure was direct and substantial.
  • Policy Considerations: The court weighed the moral blame of defendants, the policy of preventing future harm, and the burden on defendants, concluding that public policy supports imposing this duty.

Importantly, while acknowledging concerns about potential litigation overload, the court limited the duty to household members to maintain a balance between foreseeable harm compensation and litigation manageability.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for both employers and property owners:

  • Legal Obligations: Employers must implement measures such as changing rooms, showers, and proper laundering protocols to prevent asbestos fibers from reaching employees' homes.
  • Premises Liability: Property owners using asbestos must ensure containment measures are in place not just onsite but also to prevent offsite exposure.
  • Litigation Trends: While the court anticipates claims may increase, the limitation to household members aims to contain litigation within a manageable scope.
  • Public Health: Enhances protections for families of asbestos-exposed workers, potentially reducing asbestos-related illnesses.

Additionally, this decision aligns California with other jurisdictions recognizing the duty to protect household members from occupational hazards, thereby harmonizing tort law principles across different legal landscapes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Duty of Care: A legal obligation to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably harm others. In this case, employers and property owners must take reasonable steps to prevent asbestos from being carried home by employees.
Foreseeability: The likelihood that a reasonable person would expect certain actions to result in harm. The court found it foreseeable that asbestos could be brought home by employees.
Rowland Factors: A set of considerations used to determine the existence of a duty of care, including foreseeability, certainty of injury, moral blame, and policy implications.
Premises Liability: Legal responsibility of property owners to ensure their property is safe for visitors. This case extends that liability to preventing offsite asbestos exposure.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of California's decision in Cecelia Kesner v. The Superior Court of Alameda County marks a crucial expansion of duty of care within tort law, emphasizing the responsibility of employers and property owners to protect not just their workers but also the workers' immediate household members from secondary asbestos exposure. By narrowly defining the scope of potential plaintiffs to household members, the court strikes a balance between compensating foreseeable injuries and managing litigation volumes. This ruling underscores the importance of proactive safety measures in workplaces handling hazardous materials and reinforces the judiciary's role in adapting legal principles to evolving public health concerns.

Ultimately, this judgment serves as a significant precedent in California, promoting accountability and safeguarding public health by ensuring that those indirectly affected by occupational hazards receive appropriate legal recourse.

Case Details

Year: 2016
Court: SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge(s)

Goodwin Liu

Attorney(S)

Weitz & Luxenberg, Benno Ashrafi, Los Angeles, Cindy Saxey, Josiah W. Parker ; Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood and Ted W. Pelletier, Oakland, for Petitioner and for Plaintiff and Appellant Cecelia Kesner. Brayton Purcell, Alan R. Brayton, Gilbert L. Purcell and Gary L. Brayton, Novato, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner and Plaintiff and Appellant Cecelia Kesner. The Arkin Law Firm and Sharon J. Arkin for Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner and Plaintiff and Appellant Cecelia Kesner. Walters Kraus & Paul, Paul C. Cook and Michael B. Gurien, El Segundo, for Plaintiffs and Appellants Joshua Haver, et al. The Arkin Law Firm and Sharon J. Arkin for Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants Joshua Haver, et al. No appearance for Respondent Superior Court. Horvitz & Levy, Lisa Perrochet, Robert H. Wright, Curt Cutting, Encino; Brydon Hugo & Parker, Hugo Parker, Edward R. Hugo, San Francisco, James C. Parker and Jeffrey Kaufman, San Francisco, for Real Party in Interest and for Defendant and Respondent Pneumo Abex, LLC. McKenna Long & Aldridge, Lisa L. Oberg, San Francisco; McDermott Will & Emery and Colleen E. Baime for CertainTeed Corporation and Honeywell International Inc., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Defendant and Respondent Pneumo Abex, LLC. Snell & Wilmer, Mary-Christine Sungaila and Jenny Hua, Costa Mesa, for International Association of Defense Counsel and Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Defendant and Respondent Pneumo Abex, LLC. Fred J. Hiestand, Sacramento, for The Civil Justice Association of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Defendant and Respondent Pneumo Abex, LLC. Deborah J. La Fetra, Sacramento, for Pacific Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Defendant and Respondent Pneumo Abex, LLC. Armstrong & Associates and William H. Armstrong, Oakland, for Resolute Management as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Defendant and Respondent Pneumo Abex, LLC. Schiff Hardin and Eliot S. Jubelirer, San Francisco, for Owens-Illinois, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Defendant and Respondent Pneumo Abex, LLC. Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Mark A. Behrens and Patrick Gregory for Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Association of Manufacturers, American Tort Reform Association and NFIB Small Business Legal Center as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Defendant and Respondent Pneumo Abex, LLC. Gordon & Rees and Don Willenburg, Oakland, for Association of Defense Counsel of Northern California and Nevada as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Defendant and Respondent Pneumo Abex, LLC. Horvitz & Levy, Curt Cutting and Steven Fleischman, Encino, for Association of Southern California Defense Counsel as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Defendant and Respondent Pneumo Abex, LLC. Sims Law Firm, Selim Mounedji, Irvine; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Veronica Lewis, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Los Angeles, Joshua S. Lipshutz, San Francisco, and Alexander M. Fenner for Defendant and Respondent BNSF Railway Company. Fred J. Hiestand, Sacramento; Erika C. Frank and Heather L. Wallace, Sacramento, for The California Chamber of Commerce and The Civil Justice Association of California as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent BNSF Railway Company. Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Mark A. Behrens and Patrick Gregory for Litigation Justice, Inc., Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Association of Manufacturers, American Tort Reform Association and NFIB Small Business Legal Center as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent BNSF Railway Company. Snell & Wilmer, Mary-Christine Sungaila and Jenny Hua, Costa Mesa, for International Association of Defense Counsel and Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent BNSF Railway Company. Deborah J. La Fetra, Sacramento, for Pacific Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent BNSF Railway Company. Louis P. Warchot, Daniel Saphire ; Murphy, Campbell, Alliston & Quinn and Stephanie L. Quinn for Association of American Railroads as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent BNSF Railway Company. King & Spalding, Peter A. Strotz, Los Angeles, Steven D. Park and Ethan P. Davis, San Francisco, for Western States Petroleum Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent BNSF Railway Company.

Comments