Kentucky recognizes cause of action for second hand exposure to asbestos

A number of years ago, there was a flurry of claims arguing that the family members of workers exposed to asbestos should be allowed to recover for injuries suffered from being exposed to the workers’ clothing when the worker got home from work.  

Based on this theory of the case, widows, mostly, tried to recover for their own personal injuries in addition to the harm caused to the workers.  Some of these cases were dismissed but some recognized the cause of action based on the argument that the injuries suffered by the widows were a foreseeable consequence of the risk created by the original exposure.  Some of those cases resulted in multimillion dollar verdicts.  (You care read my comments on some of those cases by going, here, here, here, and here.)  

That type of litigation died down after a while and I had not heard of any such case in about 10 years,...  until a couple of weeks ago.  

In a case called Schneider Elec. USA, Inc. v. Williams, 733 S.W.3d 180, 192-194 (Ky. 2026), the court held that “Because foreseeability of take-home exposure turns in part on the nature and regularity of workplace contact with asbestos-containing materials, this factual dispute is material and must be resolved by a jury. . . .  In deciding whether harm was foreseeable, . . . courts look to the general foreseeability of harm, not to whether the particular, precise form of injury could be foreseen. It is enough that injury of some kind to some person within the natural range of effect of the alleged negligent act could have been foreseen.  . . . The duty which could be found here is confined to individuals alleged to have experienced regular and repeated domestic contact with asbestos-contaminated work clothing over an extended period of time.” (Citations omitted.)  

Note how the language of the court matches Judge Cardozo's analysis in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, but that the court ultimately holds the question is for the jury to decide, showing once again that Cardozo set the analysis; but Andrews won the debate as to the procedure.