July 10, 2018
In a recent Rhode Island Superior Court decision, Nichols v. Allis Chalmers Prod. Liab. Trust, the Court (Taft-Carter, J.) denied the defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that an employer had a duty to protect third party non-employees who came into contact with its employee’s asbestos-covered work clothes; this included someone who lived with an employee or would do his laundry. 2018 R.I. Super. LEXIS 38 (R.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 16, 2018).
Plaintiffs in this case alleged that Iva Pearl Jones was repeatedly and regularly exposed to asbestos fibers and dust on the clothing of Stanley Nichols, her brother-in-law, while he was employed by Crane. During discovery, Mr. Nichols testified that he worked for Crane from 1979 to 1980 as a metal pourer and furnace operator. He claimed he was exposed to asbestos during his employment. Crane did not provide uniforms to its employees. Instead, Crane provided its employees asbestos aprons, and employees wore street clothes under the asbestos aprons. During his employment by Crane, Mr. Nichols lived in the same house as Ms. Jones and her husband. Ms. Jones did the laundry, including Mr. Nichols’ work clothes. Subsequently, Mr. Jones was diagnosed with mesothelioma and died.
Crane argued that finding a duty in this take-home exposure case was “bad public policy” and that it created an unreasonable burden on an employer. However, the Court disagreed and explained that this is not going to place an “uncertain duty” on employees, as the “measures advanced by the plaintiffs – preventing employees from taking home asbestos-laden clothing and warning employees about the dangers of transmission and second-hand exposure – are clearly defined, feasible, and not cost prohibitive.” The Court found that the burden on Crane to run a safe worksite where hazardous asbestos fibers and dust do not leave the premises and to warn exposed employees was not too strenuous. The Court also noted that Crane executives were aware of the dangers of exposure to breathable asbestos in the 1970s. As such, it was foreseeable to Crane that asbestos fibers could be transmitted on employees’ clothing and could create a risk to employees’ household members.
The Court ruled that Rhode Island law imposes a duty of care on Crane, an employer, to protect third party non-employees who come into contact with its employees’ asbestos-tainted work clothes at the employees’ homes. In its decision, the Court reasoned that it was foreseeable to the employer that dangerous asbestos fibers and dust could be transmitted on an employee’s clothing and could pose a risk to individuals living with that employee.
Defendants should be aware, based on this recent decision, in some instances, Rhode Island employer-defendants will not be dismissed from a case on a motion for summary judgment regarding third party claims. In the Nichols case Judge Taft-Carter’s decision made it clear that the employer either knew or should have known that if the employer did not provide uniforms, employees would wear street clothes and people living with those employees could handle their asbestos-contaminated work clothes at home. As such, third party non-employee claims against employer-defendants are deemed foreseeable in certain circumstances and may not be defeated by motions for summary judgment.