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).
