Price v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.
26 A.3d 162
| Del. | 2011Background
- Patricia Price sues DuPont for household asbestos exposure allegedly caused by her husband’s work at the Chestnut Run plant (1957–1991).
- Bobby Price worked with/around asbestos; fibers allegedly traveled home on clothes, vehicle, and skin to expose Patricia.
- Patricia claims she developed bilateral interstitial fibrosis and bilateral pleural thickening from the exposure.
- Price filed a household exposure complaint on June 8, 2009, including specific paragraphs alleging home exposure from husband’s work clothes and person.
- Price moved to amend on July 9, 2009 to recast the claim as misfeasance; DuPont opposed, arguing the proposed amendments state nonfeasance and lack a special relationship; Special Master found futility; trial court affirmed; this appeal followed.
- The central issue is whether the amendments plead misfeasance with a cognizable duty, or nonfeasance without a special relationship, rendering the amendments futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Price’s proposed amendments plead misfeasance or are they futile as nonfeasance? | Price argues misfeasance from DuPont’s affirmative release of asbestos. | DuPont contends the conduct is nonfeasance and lacks a special relationship. | Amendments state nonfeasance; no special relationship; amendments are futile. |
| Is there a legally cognizable special relationship between Price and DuPont to create a duty in a nonfeasance claim? | Price asserts special relationship via spouse, health benefits, and company-sponsor programs. | No special relationship exists between Price and DuPont. | No special relationship; no duty; nonfeasance claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Riedel v. ICI Americas Inc., 968 A.2d 17 (Del. 2009) (distinguishes nonfeasance vs misfeasance; underlying facts support nonfeasance; no special relationship required for nonfeasance before addressing misfeasance)
- Sirmans v. Penn, 588 A.2d 1103 (Del. 1991) (Restatement-based duty analysis; special-relations concept cited by courts)
- Delmarva Power & Light Co. v. Burrows, 435 A.2d 716 (Del. 1981) (duty concepts in negligence; foreseeability factors)
- Naidu v. Laird, 539 A.2d 1064 (Del. 1988) (Restatement-guided duty framework; foreseeability considerations)
- Furek v. Univ. of Delaware, 594 A.2d 506 (Del. 1991) (tort duty analysis guidance; Restatement influence)
- Danby v. Osteopathic Hosp. Ass'n of Del., 104 A.2d 903 (Del. 1954) (historical duty principles referenced in outlines)