Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
An asbestos lung cancer ruling that had been used as a precedent in secondary asbestos exposure lawsuits in California may be reversed or no longer applicable.
The landmark case that began the legal discussion of secondary asbestos exposure is Campbell v. Ford. In this asbestos lung cancer lawsuit, the decedent (or dead) plaintiff allegedly died from an asbestos-related illness, which her family claims was caused asbestos fibers she was exposed to when washing her father and brother’s work clothing.
Both men worked at a Ford assembly plant as construction workers where they installed asbestos-containing insulation material. The original verdict on this asbestos lung cancer case found that Ford negligently contributed to the decedent’s asbestos-related disease and her subsequent death. However, this decision was reversed when Ford appealed the case, stating that the company did not owe a “duty of care” to the decedent plaintiff.
While this was held as the “go-to” asbestos lung cancer case when making a decision about secondary asbestos exposure, more recent asbestos lung cancer lawsuits have challenged this decision by the Court of Appeals.
Two cases are currently under review by the Supreme Court of California in regard to how Campbell v. Ford applied to their rulings and how this will affect the future of asbestos lung cancer litigation.
In the case Kesner v. Superior Court, the plaintiff alleges he was negligently exposed to asbestos fibers from coming in contact with his uncle’s work clothes. Kesner’s uncle worked at Pneumo Abex LLC, a company that used asbestos when manufacturing brake lining.
In this asbestos lung cancer case, the court ruled that the company owed duty of care to the plaintiff because the secondary asbestos exposure was a foreseeable complication for someone like Kessner who had regular or constant contact with a Pneumo Abex worker.
Less than a month after the Kesner ruling , the case of Haver v. BNSF Railway Co. was also under review in the Second District Court of Appeals, specifically in regards to the secondary asbestos exposure claims and premise liability claims.
Haver allegedly died from asbestos mesothelioma condition caused by her secondary asbestos exposure from the clothing of her former husband who worked for BNSF Railway Co. While the railway company did not manufacture asbestos products, it did use asbestos-containing products and equipment on the company’s premises.
However, because Haver’s asbestos lung cancer lawsuit was essentially precluded by Kesner and Campbell’s ruling, in that Kesner made a claim of negligence that did not argue or criticize the Campbell court’s original decision regarding premise liability, the court found that BNSF was not liable for Haver’s asbestos-related lung condition that led to her death. This case was later appealed, but the California court of appeals maintained the original decision.
Secondary Asbestos Exposure Litigation Summary
According to California Court Appeals rulings from last year in the cases of Kesner v. Superior Court and Haver v. BNSF Railway Co., premise owners are not liable to family members of their employees who are exposed to asbestos used on the premise through secondary contact.
However, this does not excuse premise owners who make a business by manufacturing asbestos-containing products on site. The California Court of Appeals did rule that asbestos product manufacturers have a duty to protect the families of their employees from secondary asbestos exposure that stems from the premise owner’s negligent manufacturing of their products.
However, both cases are under review by the Supreme Court, which also means that the application of the Campbell case in future asbestos lung cancer litigation involving secondary asbestos exposure may be limited in the future.
Do YOU have a legal claim? Fill out the form on this page now for a free, immediate, and confidential case evaluation. The attorneys who work with Top Class Actions will contact you if you qualify to let you know if an individual asbestos lawsuit or asbestos class action lawsuit is best for you. [In general, asbestos lung cancer lawsuits are filed individually by each plaintiff and are not class actions.] Hurry — statutes of limitations may apply.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
Get Help – It’s Free
Join a Free Asbestos Lung Cancer Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
If you or a loved one were exposed to asbestos and developed mesothelioma, lung cancer, or cancer in the lining of the lungs, abdomen or chest cavity, you may be able to take legal action against the companies responsible. Don’t delay – in most states the statute of limitations is two years to file an asbestos lawsuit after you’re diagnosed. Obtain a free and confidential case evaluation be filling out the form below.
An attorney will contact you if you qualify to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you.