Segal McCambridge Legal Blog

On August 31, the Washington Court of Appeals found that a genuine issue of material fact existed in a case involving the premises owner, Lockheed, and its control over the “common area” and the safety and work of its subcontractors and reversed a grant of summary judgment in a case involving a deceased asbestos insulator.

Marjorie Arnold and her son Daniel, appealed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to Lockheed. The Arnolds sued Lockheed after Reuben Arnold (Marjorie’s husband and Daniel’s father) died from mesothelioma. Reuben Arnold had been an union asbestos insulator from the mid-1950s until his retirement in 1987. He was never an employee of Lockheed.

Together with Reuben’s claims stemming from his work as an insulator at Lockheed’s shipyard, the Plaintiffs asserted injuries from “take home exposure�—i.e. exposure to asbestos that Reuben brought home on his clothing. Additionally, Daniel asserted a primary exposure claim against Lockheed based on his work as an insulator at Lockheed’s shipyard.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Lockheed with regard to Daniel’s primary exposure claim but reversed with regard to the Plaintiffs’ other claims. Specifically those other claims involving the Plaintiffs contention that Lockheed owed them a duty to ensure a safe workplace as the general contractor at the Seattle shipyard and that it had a statutory obligation to provide a safe workplace. Further, the Plaintiffs argued that Lockheed is liable because Reuben was an invitee on Lockheed’s premises.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the Plaintiffs presented a genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether Lockheed owed Reuben a duty both as a landowner and as a general contractor.

The opinion is here