Ramsey v. Atlas Turner Ltd.
N14C-01-287 ASB
| Del. Super. Ct. | May 11, 2017Background
- Dorothy Ramsey (through her estate) alleged she developed lung cancer from "take-home" asbestos brought home on her husband’s work clothing from 1976–1980, and sued Herty (a manufacturer of an asbestos paper product) for failing to warn of those risks.
- At summary judgment the Superior Court granted judgment for Herty, concluding Ramsey alleged only nonfeasance (failure-to-warn) and—absent a special relationship—Herty owed no duty to Ramsey in the take-home context.
- Ramsey conceded there was no legally significant special relationship between the parties.
- Ramsey moved under Civ. R. 59(e) for reargument/reconsideration, reasserting that Herty owed a general duty to foreseeable plaintiffs and relying on Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 388 and 395; she also urged her claims be treated as misfeasance rather than nonfeasance.
- The court reviewed the motion, the prior opinion, and oral argument, and found Ramsey merely rehashed previously rejected arguments and cited no new evidence or change in law.
- The court denied the Rule 59(e) motion, reaffirming that Price and Riedel control take-home asbestos duty analysis and that absent a special relationship nonfeasance liability does not lie.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to third‑party spouse in take‑home asbestos case | Ramsey: Manufacturer owes a general duty to foreseeable third‑party plaintiffs (spouse) who are exposed via employee’s clothing | Herty: No duty where plaintiff alleges nonfeasance and no special relationship exists | Court: No duty as a matter of law absent special relationship; relied on Price and Riedel |
| Characterization of claim: misfeasance vs nonfeasance | Ramsey: Failure‑to‑warn should be treated as misfeasance (affirmative act) to avoid special‑relationship requirement | Herty: Ramsey’s claim is nonfeasance (failure to warn third parties), so special relationship needed | Court: Previously considered and rejected; Ramsey’s claim is nonfeasance and requires special relationship |
| Applicability of Restatement §§ 388 and 395 | Ramsey: §§ 388/395 impose manufacturer duty to warn foreseeable users/third parties | Herty: Restatement does not displace Delaware precedent requiring additional showing in take‑home context | Court: Recognized Restatement but held Price/Riedel augment that analysis; § 388 alone does not impose duty here without special relationship |
| Rule 59(e) standard for reconsideration | Ramsey: Court misapprehended law/facts and should change outcome | Herty: No new evidence or controlling authority presented; motion is rehashing prior arguments | Court: Denied motion; movant must show overlooked controlling precedent, new evidence, change of law, or manifest injustice — Ramsey showed none |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 26 A.3d 162 (Del. 2011) (controls duty analysis in take‑home asbestos cases; absence of special relationship is dispositive for nonfeasance claims)
- Riedel v. ICI Americas Inc., 968 A.2d 17 (Del. 2009) (articulates limits on duty for failure‑to‑act claims in the asbestos context)
- In re Asbestos Litigation (Colgain), 799 A.2d 1151 (Del. 2002) (discusses manufacturer duty to warn under Restatement principles in asbestos cases)
- In re Asbestos Litig. (Mergenthaler), 542 A.2d 1205 (Del. Super. 1986) (addresses duty and whether supplier knew or should have known employers would not provide adequate warnings)
- Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701 (Del. 1969) (Rule 59(e) recontemplation authority cited)
- E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 711 A.2d 45 (Del. Super. 1995) (standard on showing for reargument: new evidence, change of law, or manifest injustice)