SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) - A California Supreme Court decision limiting “take-home” asbestos liability to people who live in the same house doesn’t preclude a man from suing over claims he was exposed to asbestos when visiting his brother.
A jury awarded some $2.6 million in damages to the family of Cornelius Williams, who claimed he contracted deadly mesothelioma from contact with his brother Nathan. Nathan Williams claimed he worked with asbestos pipe manufactured by J-M Manufacturing and predecessor company Johns Manville as a municipal employee.
J-M appealed the verdict, arguing it had no duty to Cornelius under Kesner v. Superior Court, a 2016 decision limiting negligence liability in asbestos cases to people living in the same household. The California Supreme Court described it as “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.”
The holding in Kesner doesn’t apply to strict liability claims, however, California’s First Appellate District Court ruled in a May 22 decision by Justice Marla Miller. Strict liability differs from negligence in that it has the policy goal of holding manufacturers accountable for the costs of defective products, the appeals court ruled.
J-M argued it couldn’t have a duty to provide adequate warning to Cornelius, since he was never directly exposed to its products. It also warned of “virtually infinite litigation” as plaintiffs claim increasingly distant connections to people who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing products.
But the appeals court said the California Supreme Court has already upheld the concept of take-home liability, meaning family members can sue even though a manufacturer never had an opportunity to warn them. The requirements for suing under strict liability provide “sufficient guardrails” to protect against meritless litigation, the court said.