The NAM and 7 business organizations filed an amicus brief 4/18/2007 in another asbestos exposure case. This case involves a clear issue whether Michigan law imposes a legal duty on owners of property, on which asbestos-containing products are located, to protect remote third parties from exposure to fibers carried home on clothing of independent contractors working on the property. Several courts have rejected such a duty.
Our brief outlines the impact of asbestos litigation on society, and challenges arguments in favor of a new duty rule as unsound. Liability of property owners to persons with whom they have no relationship are substantially different from liability arising under product liability laws, and a broad new duty would worsen the asbestos liability crisis.
On July 25, the court agreed. It ruled that the property owner in this case owed no duty to a person to protect her from exposure to asbestos fibers carried home on the clothing of a member of her household who was working on the property as the employee of an independent contractor. The court had to weigh various factors in determining whether a legal duty should be imposed on the property owner, including "the relationship of the parties, the foreseeability of the harm, the burden on the defendant, and the nature of the risk presented," with the relationship of the parties the most important factor. It was a very fact-specific analysis. The plaintiff here was a stepdaughter who sometimes washed the contractor's clothes, and during the years 1954-1965, we did not know what we know today about the hazards of asbestos -- thus the harm was not foreseeable. In those circumstances, the court declined to impose a duty on the property owner.