"Take-Home" Asbestos Contamination Lawsuit Quashed by State Law in Ohio

Columbus, OHFor anyone considering an asbestos lawsuit in the state of Ohio, a review of a recent case bears summary after one of the most tragic aspects of asbestos contamination was litigated in court—the death of a family member following the unintended transport of asbestos fibers home on work clothes. A state statute in Ohio appears to limit the potential for mesothelioma lawsuits in that context.

The recent ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed that the owner of an industrial plant located in the state is not liable for the asbestos exposure suffered by the wife of a Goodyear worker, who subsequently died after coming into contact with the asbestos fibers transported home on her husband's work clothes.

Her estate sued Goodyear, the industrial manufacturer that served as the source for the asbestos. However, according to the 6/10/10 issue of Lawyers Weekly USA, the defendant argued that a state law immunizing property owners from asbestos lawsuits relating to off-premises exposure effectively quashed the claim for wrongful death.

At issue is the so-called "take-home" exposure of asbestos fibers. Workers who are not aware that they are working with asbestos, or are not up to speed on the potential dangers, have been known to transport asbestos home on their clothes. Asbestos fibers also frequently settle into the cloth and carpeting of car seats.

The estate of the deceased woman acknowledged the state law in Ohio, but argued the law didn't apply in the case.

The court disagreed: "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."

It is not known, given the awareness of the dangers and risks associated with asbestos and mesothelioma, why the worker was allowed to wear work clothes home. One would assume that those who work with dangerous substances would be required to wear their street clothes home only, and check their contaminated coveralls at a qualified containment facility within the plant.

For future mesothelioma lawsuits in Ohio related to take-home exposure, an alternative legal argument would be prudent, given the state Supreme Court's position regarding Boley v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and the state law governing exposure of contaminants off-premises.