The NAM joined with six other groups in an amicus brief 12/12/05 urging the New Jersey Supreme Court to reject a theory of liability that would hold a company liable for second-hand exposure to a hazard in the workplace. The court, however, ruled 4/24/06 that the company owed a duty to protect against foreseeable harm to an employee’s wife (who laundered his work clothes). The court sent the case back for further proceedings on the extent of the duty owed to the worker and whether the company had satisfied the duty. It also left open the possibility that the company could be exonerated if the hazard-incident-to-work exception applies.The wife of a contractor allegedly was harmed by asbestos brought home by her husband from work. Her husband worked as a union pipe welder at over fifty worksites during his 37-year career, sometimes being exposed to asbestos insulation and carrying it home on his clothing. Sixteen years after his retirement, she was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Her husband sued 30 companies over her illness.
Whether a landowner or employer is liable to third parties for second-hand exposure to hazardous substances brought home from work is an aggressive new position that plaintiffs are pressing in the courts. Two state courts have recently refused to create this new liability. Our brief highlighted the fact that liability to remote parties is a policy issue for the legislature, and that extending it in a case like this is not appropriate because of difficult questions relating to causation, control and limitless liability.