85 Va. Cir. 149
Albemarle Cir. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff Ruby H. Link filed suit in Albemarle Circuit Court on Feb. 14, 2012, alleging DuPont and PEC negligence related to asbestos exposure.
- Plaintiff seeks relief based on exposure her husband William Link incurred as an insulator for Brown & Root at sites including DuPont and PEC facilities in Virginia and North Carolina.
- William Link worked 1972–1980; he allegedly brought asbestos dust home on clothing and belongings, exposing Plaintiff.
- Plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2009 allegedly from the exposure.
- Defendants demurred, asserting no duty of care owed to Plaintiff. The court focuses on duty related to off-premises exposure.
- The court sustains the demurrers, finding no legally recognized duty from premises owners to the spouse of an independent contractor’s employee; leave to amend granted within 14 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether premises owner owes a duty to the spouse of an independent contractor’s employee | Plaintiff asserts foreseeability creates duty | DuPont/PEC argue no recognized duty without relation to invitee or statutory basis | No duty found; demurrers sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Kitch en v. City of Newport News, 275 Va. 378 (2008) (demonstrates required factual basis and duty analysis under Virginia law)
- CaterCorp., Inc. v. Catering Concepts, Inc., 246 Va. 22 (1993) (demurrer standards; facts needed to establish legal duty)
- Welding, Inc. v. Bland Cnty. Serv. Auth., 261 Va. 218 (2001) (duty defined by facts and reasonable foreseeability)
- Holles v. Sunrise Terrace, Inc., 257 Va. 131 (1999) (recognizes when a special relationship may create duty)
- Hortenstein v. Virginia-Carolina Ry., 102 Va. 914 (1904) (foreseeability requires a legally recognized relationship for duty)
- Standard Oil Co. v. Wakefield, 102 Va. 824 (1904) (duty relates to use of property to avoid injuring others)