A Washington state jury has awarded $3.5 million to the estate of a woman who died of mesothelioma she contracted from exposure to asbestos carried home on her husband’s work clothes. AboutLawsuits has the story here.
Most asbestos cases involve plaintiffs who were exposed to asbestos at
work, but the plaintiff in this case was exposed to asbestos due to her
contact with her husband, who as a result of his work, carried asbestos fibers
home on his work clothes. In a case like this, the issue of whether the possible liability of the
defendant should be limited to the person exposed to asbestos directly
at work. In the end, the issue is one of proximate cause or duty. Should
the duty of the defendant extend to include the injuries suffered by
anyone exposed to the fibers, or just to the injuries of those exposed
at work?
The case is similar to a case in California in which the jury awarded $27.3 million in damages, and a case in Illinios in which the court remanded the case to allow the plaintiff a chance to support its allegation of duty. You can read my comment on those cases here.
No comments:
Post a Comment