X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey may be liable for injuries resulting from second hand exposure to asbestos at its work sites, the Appellate Division, 1st Department, ruled Thursday. Reversing Justice Helen E. Freedman’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Port Authority, the appellate court concluded that the Manhattan Supreme Court “erred in holding that the Port Authority owed no duty to the wife as a matter of law on the ground that an employer’s duty to provide employees with a safe workplace did not extend to non-employees exposed to asbestos off premises.” Elizabeth Holdampf, a 59-year-old housewife from Queens, initiated an action against the Port Authority and more than 20 other defendants after being diagnosed in 2001 with mesothelioma, a usually fatal form of cancer associated with exposure to asbestos dust. All of the defendants except for the Port Authority — mostly manufacturers of asbestos or products that require asbestos — have settled or been dismissed from the case. Holdampf’s husband, John, worked as a mechanic at the Port Authority from 1960 until 1996 and was exposed to asbestos at at least eight of its sites, including the World Trade Center, the Holland and Lincoln tunnels and all three major New York-area airports. Holdampf, who does not have cancer, wore his work clothes home each evening, Holdampf alleges, and her repeated exposure while laundering his contaminated clothing for 30 years caused her cancer. Holdampf claimed that the Port Authority was negligent for “failing to warn its employees and ‘other persons who were reasonably and foreseeably known to come into contact with the asbestos-containing products’ against the dangers associated with exposure to asbestos,” Justice Luis A. Gonzalez wrote in Holdampf v. A.C.S. Inc., 3478. In its motion for summary judgment, the Port Authority contended that liability did not attach because Holdampf’s exposure was not connected to her personally being employed at any Port Authority site. Neither common law nor statutory duty extends to non-employees, the defense argued, citing Widera v. Ettco Wire and Cable Corp., 204 AD 2d 306. In a one-sentence short order form, the Supreme Court granted the Port Authority’s motion, “based on [the] Widera case and absence of duty to plaintiffs.” In a 21-page ruling overturning that decision, the appeals panel relied on the principles of foreseeability that descend from the seminal case Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co., 248 NY 339. In deciding on duty of care, Gonzalez said, a court should look at such factors as the relationship of the parties, whether the accident was foreseeable and, citing Palsgraf, “whether the plaintiff was within the zone of foreseeable harm.” The Port Authority ignored this line of precedent, Gonzalez wrote, and based its application for summary relief “almost exclusively on the Widera rationale that an employer owes no duty of care to non-employees outside the workplace.” That was misguided, the panel found, since Widera was distinguishable. That case, filed on behalf of an infant plaintiff who had been exposed to chemicals as a result of a pregnant mother’s washing of work clothes, “involved the unique question of a tortfeasor’s liability to an infant for injuries occurring while in utero.” The court also declined to “subscribe to such a narrow view of common-law negligence” as Widera‘s, one that precludes liability from extending “to any non-employees for injuries resulting from dangerous substances escaping from its premises.” Holdampf’s attorney, Erik Jacobs of Weitz & Luxenberg, which specializes in asbestos and toxic torts, said that the Port Authority knew of the dangers but failed to warn the employees and their families. “It’s one thing to know that the construction workers are in danger from everyday, prolonged, repeated exposure,” Jacobs said. “It’s another thing to know that people are at risk from asbestos spilling out of the construction site.” Jacobs said that between 1 percent and 5 percent of his firm’s asbestos cases come from victims of second hand asbestos, but that the number of such suits is unlikely to rise. Almost everyone who gets mesothelioma files a claim, he said. “We’re going to ask the judge to put the case back on the calendar,” Jacobs said. “We’re ready for trial.” Attorneys for the Port Authority could not be reached for comment.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.