In August the Meso Blog reported on two recent court decisions that differed significantly in regard to whether mesothelioma victims who contracted the disease as a result of second-hand exposure to asbestos fibers brought home on a family members' clothing, had a right to receive compensation for their injuries. (See Appeals Court Sets Precedent in Mesothelioma Case, posted on August 27th and Michigan Court Finds No Duty to Household Member for Asbestos on Worker's Clothing, posted August 22nd).

The 8/27 post dealt with the case of Rochon v. SaberHagen Holdings, Inc., in which the Washington state Court of Appeals ruled that the employer paper mill had a duty to protect a worker’s family as well as the worker against injury from “an unreasonable risk of harm it had itself created”. This precedential ruling paves the way for hundreds of family members who have suffered from second-hand asbestos exposure to file suit and have their cases heard by a jury. The earlier 8/22 post reported on Miller v. Ford Motor Co. in which the Michigan Supreme Court considered whether a defendant property owner had a legal duty to protect a third party non-employee who had never been on or near its property, from exposure to asbestos fibers carried home on a household member’s clothing. There, the Court determined that the relationship between Carolyn Miller and Ford Motor Co. was “highly tenuous”, such that it did not warrant the imposition of that duty.

These are but two examples of inconsistent rulings with regard to 'take-home' asbestos suits. An article posted in today's National Law Journal (subscription only) takes a closer look at the Rochon and Miller cases, as well as similar cases from other jurisdictions which have reached mixed results on the issue of compensation for victims of second-hand exposure. Defense attorneys say that they are seeing a growing number of 'take-home' asbestos suits, most of which are being filed by women who are claiming to have been exposed to asbestos fibers brought into the home on the clothing of male family members who worked with or were exposed to asbestos on the job. Employers, they say, are concerned about decisions like that in Rochon which they fear will open the floodgates to the filing of an unprecedented number of second-hand asbestos exposure cases. The Plaintiff's bar, on the other hand, welcomes such decisions as "long overdue" for 'take-home' exposure victims who suffer from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Either way, with the increase in second-hand exposure cases, this will continue to be a hot issue in asbestos litigation.