California Court of Appeal Affirms $2.7 Million Damages Award to Non-Household Member After Exposure to Asbestos
On May 22, 2024, the California Court of Appeal in the First District affirmed a ruling allowing a plaintiff to recover for secondary exposure to asbestos under a theory of strict liability, even though the plaintiff was a non-household member of his brother, who was directly exposed.
Nathan Williams was exposed to asbestos through work from 1978 to 2001. Cornelius Williams, Nathan’s brother, was diagnosed with mesothelioma and subsequently filed a lawsuit against J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. (JMM) and A.H. Voss Co. Although Nathan never experienced related illnesses, Nathan’s family presented evidence at trial that his brother, Cornelius, died of mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos due to the time he and Nathan spent together. The jury found Cornelius was exposed to asbestos by the defendant companies and awarded damages of $2.7 million.
In Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, the California Supreme Court held there is a duty of care to prevent secondary exposure to asbestos extended to household members of workers.[1] On appeal, JMM argued the there was no legal duty owed to Cornelius under Kesner because he was not a household member.
However, in Kesner the plaintiffs alleged negligence and premises liability, while Cornelius brought forward a theory of strict liability, thus, he did not have to prove there was a legal duty owed to him.[2] The court of appeal, here, stated that JMM failed to present authority supporting the argument that the Kesner limitation of household members would also apply for a claim of strict liability.
By holding companies responsible here, the court said it would ensure costs of harm caused by defective products would be borne by the manufacturers, as opposed to individuals “who are powerless to protect themselves.”[3]
Counsel for Williams stated that the ruling is consistent with California’s policy that manufacturers of defective products should be held responsible for and bear the costs of the harm those products cause.
Counsel for JMM expressed their concern that if the ruling stands, companies who manufactured or sold products containing asbestos could face limitless liability. JMM intends to appeal this ruling to the California Supreme Court.
[1] “[A]n employer’s or property owner’s duty to prevent take-home exposure extends only to members of a worker’s household, i.e., persons who live with the worker and are thus foreseeably in close and sustained contact with the worker over a significant period of time.” (Kesner, supra, 1.Cal.5th at 1154-1155.)
[2] “Unlike a negligence theory of liability, a strict products liability theory does not focus on the defendant’s duty to use due care; the defendant’s behavior is irrelevant.” (Jenkins v. T&N PLC (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1231.)
[3] Elmore v. American Motors Corp. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 578, 585.
-
Extensive Business KnowledgeRegardless of the complexity of your case, you can trust that your legal matters will be in competent hands when you turn to Poole Shaffery.
-
Proven Track RecordOur team of accomplished business attorneys has consistently delivered positive outcomes for our clients, resolving complex business matters with skill and expertise.
-
Experience and ReputationPoole Shaffery boasts a team of Santa Clarita business attorneys with strong reputations among judges and fellow lawyers, including AV Preeminent® rated professionals and Super Lawyers® honorees.