Liability to Third Parties. Lee Stegemoller was a union member who insulated large machinery between 1947 and 1988. During his career, he worked for a number of different companies. Stegemoller primarily worked with asbestos insulation, which was used

Question

on industrial boilers, engines, furnaces, and turbines. After he left a work site, some of the asbestos dust always remained on his clothing. His wife Ramona, who laundered his work clothes, was also exposed to the dust on a daily basis. Allegedly, as a result of this contact, she was diagnosed with colon cancer, pulmonary fibrosis, and pleural thickening in April 1998. The Stegemollers filed a suit in an Indiana state court against ACandS, Inc, and thirty-three others, contending among other things that the asbestos originated from products attributable to some of the defendants and from the premises of other defendants. Several defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting that Ramona was not a "user or consumer" of asbestos because she was not in the vicinity of the product when it was used. Should the court dismiss the suit on this basis? Explain.

Answer 1

Liability to third parties
The court granted the motion to dismiss. The Stegemollers appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court, which held that the defendants could be liable to Ramona as a bystander and directed the lower court to reinstate the complaint. The state supreme court pointed out that under an applicable state statute, "consumer" includes "any bystander injured by the product who would reasonably be expected to be in the vicinity of the product during its reasonably expected use." The defendants "reason that the product at issue is insulation material that contains asbestos, not residue such as fibers from that material, and that Mrs. Stegemoller was not in the vicinity of the industrial jobsite where the insulation material was used." The court stated, "This is too narrow a view. The normal, expected use of asbestos products entails contact with its migrating and potentially harmful residue." The defendants also argued that "Mrs. Stegemoller was not in the product's vicinity during its reasonably expected use. Again, their reading is too restrictive. . . . Here, the reasonably expected use of asbestos products encompasses the cleansing of asbestos residue from one's person and clothing at the end of the workday. We therefore hold, taking into account the nature of asbestos products, that Mrs. Stegemoller has a cognizable claim as a bystander."