News & Analysis as of

Take-Home Exposure

Schwartz v. Accuratus Corp.: Nonspouse’s “Take-Home” Liability Case

by K&L Gates LLP on

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently issued a decision that permitted a frequent visiting nonspouse to maintain a “take-home” exposure claim under New Jersey law. Although the Court was...more

West Virginia Supreme Court Applies Ohio Mixed Dust Exposure Statute

by Steptoe & Johnson PLLC on

Recently, in State ex rel. American Electric Power v. Swope, the West Virginia Supreme Court ordered the dismissal of a number of mixed dust exposure cases. Dozens of persons brought claims alleging injuries as a result of...more

“Take-Home Toxins” Expand Duty of Care Imposed on Employers

A federal district court in Pennsylvania recently found that Accuratus Corporation (“Accuratus”), a ceramics manufacturer and supplier, could be liable under New Jersey law for chemical exposure injuries to the girlfriend and...more

California Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Claim of ‘Possible’ Exposure to Asbestos

by Selman Breitman LLP on

Defendants in California asbestos injury lawsuits cannot be held liable where plaintiffs can only prove a ‘possibility’ of exposure to defendants’ asbestos-containing products. The California Court of Appeal in Billy S....more

California Imposes Broad Liability in “Take-Home” Toxic Exposure Cases

by Wilson Elser on

The Supreme Court of California has overturned prior case law and imposed broad new liability on “employers and premises owners” in “take-home” toxic exposure cases. In a lengthy opinion issued in the consolidated Kesner v....more

California Supreme Court Imposes Broad Liability for Employers and Premises Owners in “Take-Home” Toxic Exposure Cases

by Wilson Elser on

The Supreme Court of California has overturned prior case law and imposed broad new liability on “employers and premises owners” in “take-home” toxic exposure cases. In a lengthy opinion issued in the consolidated Kesner v....more

Rost May Change the Toxic Tort Landscape

A November 22, 2016 Supreme Court ruling, Rost, significantly changed the playing field for defendants in Pennsylvania. During trial, Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Arthur Frank, espoused the previously-rejected opinion that each...more

Toxic Tort & Product Liability Quarterly Vol. 9, No. 4, December 2016

by Beveridge & Diamond PC on

DC High Court Adopts Daubert Approach to Expert Testimony - In a direct victory for mobile phone manufacturers and service providers, and with implications for any other case involving expert testimony in the District of...more

California Supreme Court Establishes Duty in Take-Home Asbestos Exposure Cases

by Perkins Coie on

On December 1, 2016, the Supreme Court of California held that the duty of employers and premises owners to exercise ordinary care in their use of asbestos in their businesses includes a duty to take reasonable care to...more

Asbestos Alert: Employers and Land Owners Have Duty to Take-Home Exposure Plaintiffs

by Low, Ball & Lynch on

Kesner v. Pneumo Abex, LLC - Supreme Court of California (December 1, 2016) We first reported on this case on May 14, 2014, when the Court of Appeal ruled. The case was further appealed to the California Supreme...more

Court Decides Take-Home Exposure Duty Claims with 'Wide-Ranging Impact'

by Polsinelli on

Employers and premises owners have a duty to "members of a worker's household" to exercise ordinary care to prevent take-home asbestos exposures, the California Supreme Court held on December 1, 2016. This ruling expands...more

"Take-Home" Asbestos Case Decision Could have Ripple Effect

by Polsinelli on

Companies facing "take-home" asbestos or other toxic tort exposure claims in Arizona, or in other jurisdictions applying Arizona law, now have a new case to cite in dispositive motions. With the Sept. 20 Arizona Court of...more

Arizona Court of Appeals Deals Fatal Blow to "Take-Home" Asbestos Exposure Lawsuits

In a recent published opinion, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that an employer does not owe a duty of care to the child of an employee who contracts mesothelioma from asbestos brought home on the employee’s work clothes,...more

Asbestos Exposure Liability Decision May Affect Future "Take Home" Cases

by Polsinelli on

Following recent court action, defendants up against "take-home" asbestos exposure claims may need to rethink their legal strategy. The Northern District of Illinois recently denied a Motion for Reconsideration of a...more

NJ Supreme Court Opens Door to More Take-Home Exposure Claims against Landowners

by Wilson Elser on

On July 6, 2016, in Schwartz v. Accuratus Corporation, No. A-73-14-076195, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that individuals other than spouses exposed to take-home toxins may pursue claims against landowners....more

New Jersey High Court Expands Reach of “Take-Home” Toxic Tort Claims

by Blank Rome LLP on

Action Item: Employers and premises owner of facilities in which employees or visitors might be exposed to alleged hazardous substances must be aware of a recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision in Schwartz v. Accuratus...more

North Dakota High Court Rejects “Take-Home” Asbestos Claim

by Beveridge & Diamond PC on

In a case of first impression that may clarify the duty of care in secondary exposure claims in North Dakota, the state’s highest court rejected claims based on childhood exposure to asbestos brought home on an insulation...more

Take-Home Exposure Claims Under Review by California's High Court

by Polsinelli on

On August 20, 2014, the California Supreme Court granted petitions for review in two published decisions that reached different conclusions on whether a defendant owed a duty for take-home exposures. Both matters (Haver v....more

Pennsylvania Does Not Recognize Duty to Warn an Employee’s Spouse

by Morgan Lewis on

District court predicts that Pennsylvania will not recognize a duty to protect or warn the spouse of an employee in “take home” or “household” asbestos exposure cases. On August 26, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S....more

Asbestos Alert: Kesner v. Pneumo Abex, LLC

by Low, Ball & Lynch on

Employers Now Have Duty to Take-Home Exposure Plaintiffs - On May 15, 2014, the Court of Appeal answered a question which has been asked repeatedly since the Second District Court of Appeal published a decision in...more

20 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1
Cybersecurity

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.