A groundbreaking ruling by the Kentucky Supreme Court made all the difference for the family of a woman who died of mesothelioma in 2017. Following nearly ten years of litigation, the court ruled that the state’s’ workers’ compensation exclusivity rule doesn’t prevent negligence and product liability claims stemming from “take-home” asbestos exposure.
Workers’ Compensation Question Centers on Mesothelioma Victim’s Secondary Exposure
The original mesothelioma lawsuit was filed in May 2017 after Vickie Williams was diagnosed with the rare asbestos-related disease. Williams claimed that her illness was caused by asbestos exposure in 1978, when she worked for Square D during the summer, and indirectly from the asbestos carried on the clothing her father wore to his full-time job with the company. After Williams died in February 2017, her husband was substituted as plaintiff, and Square D filed to have the case dismissed, arguing that Williams’ brief employment meant that workers’ compensation exclusivity applied.
The trial court denied the company’s petition, ruling there was no evidence that Williams’ mesothelioma was caused by her own employment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the company’s argument that injuries caused by her father’s employment weren’t compensable because she once worked there. The court noted that dismissing the case would create a “windfall,” immunizing the company from fault as her father’s employer. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, deciding that mesothelioma claims from household asbestos exposure fall outside the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act because the injury did not arise from the victim’s own employment.
Experts Agree that Mesothelioma Was Caused by Take-home Asbestos
In its decision on the mesothelioma case, the Kentucky Supreme Court emphasized that the workers’ compensation statute applies only to injuries “arising out of and in the course of employment,” and noted that both the family’s experts and those testifying for the defendants experts agreed that her illness was not caused by her 1978 summer employment, but rather by long-term household exposure from her father’s contaminated clothing. They ruled that exclusivity did not apply and did not shield the employer from civil liability.
Beyond the mesothelioma decision, the court addressed whether employers and product manufacturers generally owe duties to individuals outside the workplace. It said that liability can exist where exposure to hazardous materials is foreseeable, especially where there is repeated, close contact with contaminated clothing over time, as is so often seen in secondary asbestos exposure cases.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, you need guidance and assistance from experienced professionals. For information on the help available to you, contact the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net at 1-800-692-8608 today.
