Readers of MassTortDefense recognize that one feature of the asbestos litigation is the co-called family or household exposure case, a form of by-stander liability in which the plaintiff alleges he or she contracted asbestos disease not from exposures at work but through contact with a family member who brings the fibers home from a job.
A recent case explores this situation in a non-asbestos context. In Oddone v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 2009 WL 4044429 (Cal. Ct. App., 11/24/09), James Oddone worked for Technicolor, Inc., from 1973 until 2006; he died from a brain tumor (glioblastoma multiforme) in January 2007. His wife, inter alia, asserted on her own behalf the theory that her husband brought home toxic vapors and chemicals on his clothing and person and that she was injured by exposure to these materials; this cause of action was predicated on Technicolor’s alleged negligence in exposing her husband to toxic chemicals.
Most claims of this type are analyzed, at first, with a duty analysis. Here, the defendant argued, and the lower court agreed, there was no duty to the wife, using the traditional duty factors, including whether transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff; the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff; the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury; the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered; the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct; and the policy of preventing future harm.
The court of appeals did agree with the proposition that this was the exact analytical framework for the case. Rather, the major factors ought to be ones are the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.
In order to apply those factors, however, a plaintiff claiming to have been injured by an exposure to chemicals must specify the chemical that caused the injury and in the course of doing so must of course also specify the injury. Importantly, he must also allege that as a result of the exposure the specified toxin entered his body. The court said it does not make a difference that the plaintiff is claiming injury as a result of secondary exposure. If anything, the exposure requirements are even more apropos in such a case because the connection between the defendant’s acts and the claimed injury is more attenuated than in a primary exposure context.
“It cannot be denied that a case predicated on secondary exposure to chemicals potentially cuts a very wide swath,” said the court of appeals. It is therefore only appropriate to pay close attention to the factor that there must be a close connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered. That connection is only shown by setting forth specifically which chemicals cause which specified injuries. In a secondary exposure case, the allegation that as a result of the exposure the specified chemical entered the plaintiff’s body is of particular importance. Central issues in such a case are whether secondary exposure to a specified chemical is even possible and, if it is, whether the exposure will result in the ingestion of the chemical into the plaintiff’s body.
Turning to policy issues, the court did not hold that a plaintiff cannot ever state a cause of action for secondary exposure to toxic chemicals. But, as part of the analysis, including “all family members” into the category of those owed a duty would be too broad, as not all family members will be in constant and personal contact with the employee. Limiting the class to spouses would be at once too narrow and too broad, as others may be in contact with the employee and spouses may not invariably be in contact with the employee. Limiting the class to those persons who have frequent and personal contact with employees leaves at large the question what “frequent” and “personal” really means. The gist of the matter is that imposing a duty toward non-employee persons saddles the defendant employer with a burden of uncertain but potentially very large scope. One of the consequences to the community of such an extension is the cost of insuring against liability of unknown but potentially massive dimension. Ultimately, such costs are borne by the consumer.
Here, the court of appeals could not say that the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining the demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend.