Introduction
This article examines the legal battle arising from a tragic case of asbestos exposure, highlighting the complexities of duty of care owed by companies to their employees’ families. The case involved a worker exposed to asbestos at various job sites and his wife, who later developed mesothelioma due to secondary exposure from washing his work clothes.
The Case of Boynton v. Kennecott Utah Copper, LLC
The case centered around the concept of duty of care, a fundamental principle in negligence law. The plaintiff argued that the companies had a duty of care not only to their employee but also to his wife, as they should have foreseen the risk of secondary asbestos exposure.
The lawsuit stemmed from the work history of Larry Boynton, who was employed at various sites owned by Kennecott Utah Copper, ConocoPhillips, and PacifiCorp during the 1960s and 70s. During this period, asbestos exposure was a known hazard, and companies had a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to protect their workers.
Larry’s work exposed him to asbestos dust, which would settle on his clothes. He would then wear these clothes home, unknowingly putting his wife Barbara at risk. Tragically, Barbara was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in 2016, a type of cancer directly linked to asbestos exposure, and passed away just three weeks later.
## Legal Arguments and Proceedings
Following Barbara’s death, Larry filed a negligence lawsuit against the three companies, alleging that they failed in their duty of care by:
Failing to warn: The companies did not adequately warn Larry about the dangers of asbestos exposure, particularly the risk of secondary exposure to his family.
Lack of safety measures: They did not implement sufficient safety measures to minimize asbestos dust and prevent it from clinging to workers’ clothes. This could have included providing on-site laundry facilities or protective clothing.
The companies, however, argued that they did not owe a duty of care to Barbara, as she was not their employee. They filed for summary judgment, requesting the court to dismiss the case without a full trial.
The trial court ruled in favor of PacifiCorp and ConocoPhillips, stating that they had not taken any direct actions that created a duty of care towards Barbara. However, the court denied Kennecott’s motion for summary judgment, citing a potential dispute over whether their actions constituted an “affirmative act” that exposed Larry to asbestos.
This partial victory for the plaintiff led to an appeal, with the Utah Supreme Court ultimately agreeing to review the case. The Court’s decision was expected to clarify the scope of duty of care owed by companies in similar situations, particularly concerning secondary asbestos exposure.
The Importance of Duty of Care
This case underscores the critical importance of duty of care, a legal obligation to act responsibly and avoid causing harm to others. It requires individuals and entities to foresee potential risks associated with their actions and take reasonable precautions to prevent harm.
In occupational health and safety, duty of care goes beyond simply protecting employees within the workplace. Employers must consider the potential for “take-home” exposures, where hazardous substances are inadvertently carried home on workers’ clothing, tools, or bodies, potentially endangering their families.
Conclusion
The Boynton case serves as a stark reminder of the devastating consequences of asbestos exposure and the importance of stringent safety measures. The legal battle over duty of care highlights the complexities of assigning responsibility when the effects of workplace hazards extend beyond the worksite.
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications, potentially influencing how companies manage and mitigate risks associated with hazardous materials to protect both their employees and their families.
External Resources
* Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
* Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
* Asbestos.com
* Legal Information Institute
* United States Department of Justice