Brenda Ann Schwartz v. Accuratus Corporation(076195)
139 A.3d 84
| N.J. | 2016Background
- Brenda and Paul Schwartz sued Accuratus alleging take‑home beryllium exposure after Paul (and a roommate, Altemose) worked at Accuratus; Brenda frequently stayed at and later lived in the shared apartment and performed laundry and chores.
- Plaintiffs contend workers brought beryllium home on unprotected work clothing, contaminating the residence and exposing Brenda, who was later diagnosed with chronic beryllium disease.
- The case was removed to federal court; the district court dismissed Accuratus, concluding New Jersey (and Pennsylvania) had not recognized a duty to protect a worker’s non‑spouse roommate from take‑home exposure, relying on Olivo.
- The Third Circuit certified the question to the New Jersey Supreme Court: whether Olivo’s premises‑liability rule extends beyond a spouse, and, if so, what limits apply.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed Olivo and common‑law duty factors (foreseeability; Hopkins factors) and held Olivo’s duty may, in proper circumstances, extend beyond spouses, but the contours must be defined case‑by‑case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Olivo’s take‑home duty can extend beyond a spouse | Olivo is not limited to spouses; cohabitants who regularly perform tasks (e.g., laundry) foreseeably exposed should be included | Expanding duty to all household members or visitors would create limitless liability; duty should be limited and not extend to irregular contacts | Olivo’s duty may extend to non‑spouses in appropriate circumstances; scope depends on fact‑specific foreseeability and Hopkins‑style balancing |
| What factors limit or define the duty | Regular cohabitation, predictable tasks, and nature of toxin support foreseeability | Duty should be limited to immediate family/regular household members, not sporadic visitors or roommates with irregular contact | Court identified key factors (relationship, nature/opportunity for exposure, employer’s knowledge, public interest) and rejected a bright‑line rule |
| Role of foreseeability vs. categorical rules | Foreseeability of regular, close contact (as in laundering) controls; no bright line | Urged predictability and manageable limits to avoid open‑ended liability | Foreseeability is paramount; fairness/policy factors must be weighed case‑by‑case |
| Whether Olivo created a rule based on marital status | Plaintiffs: marital status is not essential; functional exposure roles matter | Defendants: marital status (or immediate family) provides an administrable boundary | Olivo was not grounded in marital status per se; marital status was an evidentiary fact, not a categorical limit |
Key Cases Cited
- Olivo v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 186 N.J. 394 (2006) (recognized duty to spouse who routinely handled and laundered asbestos‑contaminated work clothes; duty grounded in foreseeable, regular off‑premises exposure)
- Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426 (1993) (articulated multi‑factor test—relationship, nature of risk, ability to exercise care, public interest—for assessing duty)
- Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermkts., Inc., 149 N.J. 496 (1997) (foreseeability as central to duty analysis)
- Estate of Desir ex rel. Estiverne v. Vertus, 214 N.J. 303 (2013) (cautions against creating duties from chance or idiosyncratic encounters)
- Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Co., 266 S.W.3d 347 (Tenn. 2008) (example of extending duty to household member—employee’s child—exposed to take‑home asbestos)
- Zimko v. American Cyanamid, 905 So.2d 465 (La. Ct. App. 2005) (recognized duty to household members foreseeably exposed to asbestos on employees’ clothing)