Employer's Duty to Protect Third Persons from Asbestos Exposure: Satterfield v. Alcoa
The first question in a negligence suit is whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. In most cases, duty is not an issue because, under most circumstances, duty has previously been decided according to judicial or legislative ruling. However, some cases offer the courts unique opportunities to clarify the duties a person or business owes to others. Satterfield v. Alcoa is such a case.
In Satterfield v. Alcoa, the daughter of an Alcoa employee claimed that she developed mesothelioma as a result of regular and long term exposure to asbestos fibers. She alleged that, after leaving work, her father would come home in his work clothes not knowing that they were contaminated with asbestos fibers. She further alleged, among other things, that Alcoa failed in its duty to protect her from harm created by its negligent acts—in particular, the failure to inform the father of the dangers of wearing work clothes home. (Soon after transferring the case to the Knox County Circuit Court, the daughter succumbed to the illness.)
Alcoa then filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that Ms. Satterfield had no legal basis for her claim. Specifically, Alcoa alleged that it had no duty to protect employee’s family members. The Circuit Court for Blount County agreed and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs appealed and the case eventually worked its way to the Tennessee Supreme Court to decide whether, by law, Alcoa had a duty of reasonable care to avoid the risk of harm to Mr. Satterfield’s daughter. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Alcoa owed a duty to the Plaintiff. (The parties have since settled as of September 3, 2009).
In ruling for the plaintiff, the court hung its hat on the allegation of misfeasance—i.e., that Alcoa created the risk of exposure by failing to warn Mr. Satterfield of the danger. This effectively undercut the defense’s core argument that Alcoa had no duty to Ms. Satterfield because she had no special relationship with Alcoa, creating legal obligations by Alcoa to take affirmative steps to prevent exposure.
As the Court held, “persons do not ordinarily have a duty to act to protect others from dangers or risks except those that they themselves have created… [in which case]… “all persons have a duty to use reasonable care to refrain from conduct that will foreseeably cause injury to others.”
The Supreme Court then analyzed forseeability of harm and other policy factors and held that defendants like Alcoa not only owe a duty to their employees and their employees’ children, but anyone else who is regularly and repeatedly coming into close contact with an employee’s contaminated work clothes—including carpool members, babysitters, and domestic help.
If you or a loved one has developed mesothelioma, find out if you have a claim and who might be responsible by calling 866-853-2888 to speak with an experienced Tennessee toxic exposure attorney.
