Daily Blast May 21, 2012

On May 21, 2012, Division Seven of the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal (LA) filed an opinion in Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. ____ Cal.App.4th ____, holding that “an employer has no duty to protect family members of employees from secondary exposure to asbestos used during the course of the employer’s business.” (Slip opn., p. 20.)

Plaintiff filed a premises liability action against Ford Motor Co. alleging that she had been diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of her exposure to asbestos from laundering her father’s and brother’s asbestos-covered clothing. (Slip opn., p. 2.) Her father and brother worked with asbestos as independent contractors hired by Ford to install asbestos insulation at its New Jersey plant. (Ibid.) At trial, the jury found Ford liable for 5 percent of the plaintiff’s damages. (Id. at p. 6.) A special verdict was entered against Ford in the amount of $40,000. (Id. at pp. 6-7.) 

On appeal, the court analyzed the Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 113, factors to determine that Ford did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care. (Slip opn., p. 14.) As to the first three factors — foreseeability of harm, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, and the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered — the court noted that “even if it was foreseeable to Ford that its employees could be exposed to asbestos dust as a result of the work performed on its premises, the ‘closeness of the connection’ between Ford’s conduct in having the work performed and the injury suffered by an employee’s family member off of the premises is far more attenuated.” (Id. at pp. 14-16, emphasis in original.) As to the remaining factors — the defendant’s moral blame, the policy of preventing future harm, and the burden on the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty of care — the court concluded that “even assuming a property owner can reasonably be expected to foresee the risk of latent disease to employees’ family members secondarily exposed to asbestos used on its premises . . . strong public policy considerations counsel against imposing a duty of care on property owners for such secondary exposure.” (Id. at pp. 16-17.) According to the court, “imposing a duty toward nonemployee persons saddles the defendant employer with a burden of uncertain but potentially very large scope.” (Id. at p. 18.) This duty would place a substantial burden on the defense and impose considerable costs on the community. (Id. at p. 19.) As a result, the court held that Ford did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care. (Id. at p. 20.)

Related Practices

• Appellate