In the case of Boley versus Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, the Ohio Supreme Court recently affirmed that industrial employers are not responsible for the “take home” effect of asbestos contamination. The “take home” effect refers to the phenomena of employees unknowingly transporting hazardous materials from the workplace to the home on clothes, tools, automobiles or through other methods. Once in the home, asbestos fibers can cause a variety of health problems in families of industrial employees such as respiratory ailments, asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma.
The Supreme Court’s position was affirmed when the estate of a Goodyear worker’s wife who died of mesothelioma, a fatal cancer caused by asbestos, attempted to sue the company for wrongful death. The defendant claimed that a state law immunizing property owners to asbestos exposure taking place off premises applied to the prosecutor’s position.
While the deceased woman’s estate acknowledged the Ohio law, they claimed that it didn’t apply to the case and argued that the defendants were responsible for her illness and subsequent death.
The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed, stating:
“When the provisions of [Ohio Revised Code] 2307.941 are read in their entirety, it is evident that the General Assembly intended the phrase ‘exposure to asbestos on the premises owner’s property,’ as used in R.C. 2307.941(A), to refer to the location of the asbestos to which an individual is exposed, not the location of the exposure…
“Thus, R.C. 2307.941(A) applies to all tort actions for asbestos claims brought against premises owners relating to exposure originating from asbestos on the premises owner’s property, and R.C. 2307.941(A)(1) applies to preclude a premises owner’s liability for any asbestos exposure that does not occur at the owner’s property.”
Asbestos exposure has long been known to pose considerable health risks. The airborne fibers of the dangerous material can cause the development of fatal, cancerous tumors, years or even decades after initial exposure occurs. While the Environmental Protection Agency attempted to ban the substance in the 1980′s, their proposal was overturned by industrial giants that made heavy use of the cheap, highly insulating, fireproof substance.
The process by which the asbestos dust may have been transported to the woman’s home on her husband’s person, and Goodyear’s regulations regarding the prevention of asbestos contamination in the home did not come under investigation. While many asbestos lawsuits these days result in favorable conditions for victims of asbestos related disease, the “take home” effect does not appear to be an effective approach as demonstrated by the Boley versus Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
