Gillen v. Boeing Co.
40 F. Supp. 3d 534
E.D. Pa.2014Background
- Plaintiff Marilyn Gillen sues Boeing for take-home asbestos exposure via laundering her husband’s work clothes.
- Husband Hugh Gillen worked as a Boeing machinist; plaintiff alleges exposure occurred off Boeing premises through carried asbestos dust.
- Plaintiff also alleges potential exposure at Boeing during asbestos abatement projects near her work area, but the take-home claim is central.
- Court considers whether Boeing owed a duty to a spouse of an employee under Pennsylvania law for take-home exposure.
- Boeing moved to dismiss the take-home exposure claim under Rule 12(b)(6); plaintiff’s other arguments were effectively withdrawn.
- Judge applies Pennsylvania duty analysis (Althaus factors) in the absence of controlling Pennsylvania precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boeing owed a duty to Mrs. Gillen | Gillens argue duty exists to protect household from take-home exposure | Boeing argues no duty owed to employee’s spouse under PA law | No duty; take-home exposure claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- R.W. v. Manzek, 585 Pa. 335 (Pa. 2005) (negligence elements and duty framework)
- Althaus v. Cohen, 756 A.2d 1166 (Pa. 2000) (Althaus factors for duty: relationship, social utility, foreseeability, consequences, public interest)
- Lance v. Wyeth, 85 A.3d 434 (Pa. 2014) (limits on extending substantive duty in PA law)
- Seebold v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 57 A.3d 1232 (Pa. 2012) (foreseeability not sole determinative factor; applies Althaus factors)
- Estate of Witthoeft v. Kiskaddon, 733 A.2d 623 (Pa. 1999) (foreseeability not sole basis for duty; policy considerations matter)
- Emerich v. Philadelphia Center for Human Development, Inc., 720 A.2d 1032 (Pa. 1998) (warning against unlimited or undefined liability)
- Riedel v. ICI Americas Inc., 968 A.2d 17 (Del. 2009) (take-home exposure duty analysis (Delaware; cross-jurisdictional reference))
- Holdampf v. A.C. & S., Inc. (In re New York City Asbestos Litig.), 806 N.E.2d 115 (N.Y. 2005) (foreseeability as part of duty discussion in multi-jurisdictional context)