August 18, 2017

August 17, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 16, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 15, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

California Court Decides Take-Home Exposure Duty Claims with 'Wide-Ranging Impact'

Employers and premises owners have a duty to "members of a worker's household" to exercise ordinary care to prevent take-home asbestos exposures, the California Supreme Court held on December 1, 2016. This ruling expands liability for employers and premises owners.

The Court issued its opinion in two cases (Haver and Kesner), in which it granted review to decide whether and to what extent a duty may be owed for take-home asbestos exposure claims. Intermediate appellate courts noted the wide-ranging impact of these claims because they involve a potentially "limitless pool of plaintiffs." (Campbell v. Ford Motor Co.)

The California Supreme Court held that employers and premises owners have a duty which extends to "members of a worker's household" to exercise ordinary care to prevent take-home asbestos exposures. Balancing the competing policy interests involved, however, the Court instructed that "this duty extends only to members of a worker's household" and "does not extend beyond this circumscribed category of potential plaintiffs." The Court also noted that the duty owed was "subject to any exceptions and affirmative defenses generally applicable to premises owners" and employers, such as the rules for contractor liability.

By "drawing the line at members of a household," the Court stated "we limit potential plaintiffs to an identifiable category of persons." This addressed concerns raised by the defense (and other courts) that take-home exposure claims involve uncertainty and undue burden because they could involve "anyone who may have had contact with an asbestos worker," such as "innumerable relatives, friends, acquaintances, service providers, babysitters, neighbors, carpool partners, fellow commuters on public transportation, and laundry workers." Thus, the Court stated its holding was intended to "strike[] a workable balance between ensuring that reasonably foreseeable injuries are compensated and protecting courts and defendants from the costs associated with litigation of disproportionately meritless claims."

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California


About this Author


David Schultz's broad experience and tenacious approach account for why clients turn to him on their toughest cases and must-win situations. David brings 25+ years of experience litigating high-exposure cases at trial and before the various Courts of Appeal in California. One such case involved a $200 million punitive damage award and $5 million compensatory damage award. David was brought in after trial and drafted motions that resulted in the trial judge vacating the entire verdict, which was affirmed on appeal. David litigates cases in California, Nevada, Hawaii and...