Child Can Sue for Asbestos Exposure from Dust On Father’s Clothes

By
The Washington Court of Appeals ruled (reversing a summary judgment) that a child exposed to asbestos dust on his father’s clothes can sue - in strict liability under state law. An interesting case.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Way back in the old days, I remember reading in science class that asbestos in walls is harmless as a rule, because it's not in the air. The argument that followed was that the damage stems from the asbestos removal.
If we are to accept this as true, then why would strict liability fall to the manufacturer and not the company (or property owner who hired the company) for removal?
I ask this in a hypothetical mostly because I can't remember my source for the above assertion.
6:44 PM
Dru Stevenson said…
Yes, I've read that before as well. I believe this was a case of an employee who would come home covered in the dust, which puffs into the air when they sit down for dinner, etc. I've read about other cases of asbestosis among the families of employees who actually work in the stuff and are covered in it when they get home. There's probably an established rule of strict liability for asbestos workers themselves, which can be extended to families - but is different from claiming exposure from low-level contact coming from draughts through the walls.

Maybe some readers who know a lot about these cases could comment.
10:26 PM
Post a Comment