416 P.3d 824
Ariz.2018Background
- Ernest Quiroz died of mesothelioma allegedly caused by childhood "take-home" asbestos exposure from his father, who worked at Reynolds/Alcoa from 1948–1983; exposure period at issue ended in 1970.
- The Quiroz family sued Reynolds (employer/landowner), alleging Reynolds negligently failed to warn employees or provide protective measures, causing secondary (off‑site) exposure to family members.
- Reynolds moved for summary judgment on the ground it owed no duty to non‑employees harmed by take‑home asbestos; the superior court granted summary judgment and the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review on two statewide issues: (1) whether an employer/landowner owed a duty for secondary asbestos exposure; and (2) whether Arizona should adopt the Third Restatement duty framework.
- The Court reaffirmed Arizona’s post‑Gipson duty framework: duty is a question of law; foreseeability is not used to determine duty (only breach/causation); duty arises from recognized special relationships or public policy (typically statutes or well‑established common law).
- Holding: Reynolds owed no duty to Quiroz for take‑home asbestos — no special relationship or public‑policy source of duty was shown, and the court declined to adopt the Third Restatement’s presumed‑duty (risk‑creation) approach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of duty for secondary (take‑home) asbestos exposure | Quiroz: Employer owed duty to protect non‑employee family members from asbestos carried home (failure to warn/provide protection) | Reynolds: No recognized duty to non‑employees off‑site; no special relationship or statutory/public‑policy basis | No duty — summary judgment affirmed; no special relationship or public‑policy duty shown |
| Whether Arizona should adopt Third Restatement §7 (presumed duty via risk‑creation) | Quiroz: Adopt §7 to recognize duty where defendant’s conduct created a risk of harm (take‑home exposure) | Reynolds: Reject §7; it presumes duty and creates limitless liability; conflicts with Gipson and Arizona law | Court rejected adopting Third Restatement §7; maintained Arizona approach requiring special relationship or public‑policy basis |
| Role of foreseeability in duty analysis | Quiroz: (implicitly) foreseeability supports recognizing duty for off‑site harms | Reynolds: Gipson forecloses using foreseeability to determine duty; foreseeability belongs to breach/causation | Court reaffirmed Gipson: foreseeability not a factor for duty; remains for breach/causation |
| Whether landowner status or on‑site risk‑creating activity alone creates off‑site duty | Quiroz: Landowner’s on‑site activities that send asbestos off‑site create duty to those harmed off premises (citing Restatement §371 and prior cases) | Reynolds: Arizona law requires a special relationship or statutory/public‑policy duty; prior cases do not establish a broad off‑site duty | Court held prior authorities don’t establish a general off‑premises duty absent special relationship or statute; §371 and foreseeability‑based Second Restatement sections cannot be used to create duty under Gipson |
Key Cases Cited
- Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 (Ariz. 2007) (foreseeability not used to determine duty; duty limited to special relationships or public policy)
- Quiroz v. ALCOA Inc., 240 Ariz. 517 (App. 2016) (court of appeals opinion affirmed below; summary judgment for defendant)
- Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Bd., 146 Ariz. 352 (Ariz. 1985) (elements of negligence and duty analysis)
- Burns v. Jaquays Mining Corp., 156 Ariz. 375 (App. 1987) (asbestos blown off site; addressed damages/nuisance and medical‑monitoring claims)
- Crouse v. Wilbur‑Ellis Co., 77 Ariz. 359 (Ariz. 1954) (duty in context of crop‑dusting/trespass; foreseeability discussion)
- Carver v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n, 104 Ariz. 513 (Ariz. 1969) (adopted Restatement §364 principles: landowner liability for dangerous artificial conditions impacting others off site)
- MacNeil v. Perkins, 84 Ariz. 74 (Ariz. 1958) (attractive nuisance / landowner liability to children; off‑site injury implications)