Product Liability -- 2016



Haver v. BNSF Ry. Co.   (California Supreme Court)

Liability for take-home exposure to asbestos

The NAM filed an amicus brief urging the court to reject an extension of the duty of care to remote third parties in a California asbestos lawsuit. This was the second case before the California Supreme Court where the plaintiffs alleged that a duty of care extended to off-site contact by immediate family members, visitors, guests or others with whom an employee who was exposed to a hazardous substance may come into contact. Any imposition of a duty of care to third parties permit potentially limitless and indefinite liability. The NAM’s brief argued that there is no need to stretch tort law to provide a remedy to remote third parties and explained the impact of bankruptcies on tort defendants. The court held that it is reasonably foreseeable that workers exposed to asbestos fibers at work may act as carriers that could harm household members; therefore, employers or the owner of the property where the employee worked are liable for any injuries caused by asbestos.


Related Documents:
NAM brief  (March 11, 2015)