Kowalski v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.
24 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20526, 841 F. Supp. 104, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 383 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer who controls a known dangerous substance owes a duty of care to all persons within the foreseeable zone of danger, which can include an employee's family members harmed by secondary "take-home" exposure. Additionally, CERCLA's federally required commencement date preempts state statutes of limitations for personal injury claims arising from hazardous substance releases, even without an underlying CERCLA cleanup action.
Facts:
- Louis Kowalski, Jr. was a long-term employee at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company plant in Niagara Falls where he was exposed to the chemical ortho-toluidine.
- Goodyear knew that ortho-toluidine was a carcinogen that could cause bladder cancer.
- The plant's shower and locker facilities were configured in a way that permitted the chemical to recontaminate Mr. Kowalski's hair, skin, and street clothes after he showered.
- For 25 years, Mr. Kowalski unknowingly carried the chemical home from the plant on his person and clothing.
- His wife, Dorothy J. Kowalski, was exposed to ortho-toluidine by handling her husband's contaminated clothing and through the chemical's spread throughout their house.
- Goodyear failed to inform its employees, including Mr. Kowalski, of the potential health risks to their families from secondary exposure to ortho-toluidine.
- Dorothy J. Kowalski was subsequently diagnosed with bladder cancer.
Procedural Posture:
- Dorothy J. and Louis Kowalski, Jr. (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (defendant) in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, a federal trial court.
- The complaint asserted claims for negligence and strict liability arising from Mrs. Kowalski's bladder cancer.
- Goodyear filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that it owed no legal duty of care to Mrs. Kowalski.
- The District Court is now ruling on Goodyear's motion for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer owe a duty of care to the spouse of an employee who is harmed by secondary exposure to a hazardous chemical brought home on the employee's person and clothing?
Opinions:
Majority - Curtin, District Judge.
Yes. An employer who controls a known dangerous substance owes a duty of care to all persons within the foreseeable 'zone of danger,' which can include family members of employees who suffer secondary exposure. The court rejected Goodyear's argument that it owed no duty to Mrs. Kowalski because it had no direct relationship with her. The court reasoned that a duty arises not from privity, but from control over a known dangerous substance. Applying the foreseeability principle from Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R., the court found that the 'risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed.' Analogizing to Petition of Kinsman Transit Co., the court held that Goodyear, by controlling the dangerous chemical, 'owed a duty of care to all within the reach of the chemical’s known destructive power.' Because the plaintiffs provided evidence that Goodyear had long been aware of the risks of third-party exposure from contaminated work clothes, Mrs. Kowalski was a foreseeable plaintiff, and Goodyear therefore owed her a duty of care.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of an employer's duty of care beyond the physical confines of the workplace and the direct employment relationship. It establishes that the 'zone of danger' for hazardous substances can extend into an employee's home, making family members foreseeable plaintiffs in toxic tort litigation. The ruling emphasizes that control over a dangerous instrumentality, coupled with the foreseeability of harm, is the key to establishing a duty, rather than a direct relationship or privity. This case serves as a foundational precedent for 'take-home' toxic tort claims, affirming that companies can be held liable for injuries to employees' household members caused by secondary exposure.
