Ramsey v. Georgia Southern University
N14C-01-287 ASB
| Del. Super. Ct. | Feb 2, 2017Background
- Dorothy Ramsey (through her estate) alleges she developed lung cancer from "take-home" asbestos exposure when she laundered her husband Robert Ramsey’s work clothes; Robert worked at Haveg, where resin‑soaked asbestos paper was used.
- From 1976–1980 Georgia Southern University Advanced Development Center (Herty) manufactured and sold asbestos paper to Haveg; plaintiff alleges fibers from Herty’s product contaminated Robert’s clothing.
- Plaintiff sued Herty (and others) for negligent failure to warn, testing, packaging, and recall; plaintiff died during litigation and her estate continued the case.
- Herty moved for summary judgment arguing it owed no duty to plaintiff because her allegations are nonfeasance (failure to act) and no special relationship exists; Herty also sought dismissal on causation and other theories (some uncontested).
- The central legal question was whether Delaware precedent in Price v. DuPont and Riedel v. ICI (which denied duty to employee‑spouses against employers absent misfeasance or a special relationship) applies when a manufacturer (not the employer) supplied the asbestos product transported home.
- The Superior Court applied the Price/Riedel misfeasance‑nonfeasance framework, found plaintiff’s allegations alleged nonfeasance, found no special relationship between plaintiff and Herty, and granted summary judgment for Herty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Herty owed a duty of care to Mrs. Ramsey for take‑home asbestos exposure | Herty, as a manufacturer, owed a general duty to reasonably foreseeable users/household members to warn of risks from its asbestos product placed into the stream of commerce | Herty argues the claim is nonfeasance; under Price/Riedel a duty requires misfeasance or a special relationship, which does not exist here | Court held no duty existed: plaintiff’s claims are nonfeasance and she failed to show a special relationship, so summary judgment for Herty |
| Whether Price and Riedel are limited to employers or extend to manufacturers who supplied the product to the workplace | Plaintiff: Price/Riedel are inapplicable because Herty is not the employer; product liability principles should control | Herty: Price/Riedel apply; allowing manufacturer liability while employer is immune would be paradoxical | Court held Price/Riedel framework applies to manufacturers in this take‑home context and refused to expand general duty to plaintiff |
| Whether plaintiff alleged actionable misfeasance (affirmative wrongful act) by Herty | Plaintiff contends Herty’s manufacture and distribution without warnings is affirmative conduct creating liability | Herty contends allegations merely recite failures to act (nonfeasance), not creation of a new risk by affirmative act | Court found allegations mirror nonfeasance (failure to warn/protect) rather than misfeasance |
| Whether a special relationship exists between Herty and plaintiff (enough to create duty for nonfeasance) | Plaintiff did not identify or produce evidence of a cognizable special relationship | Herty argued no special relationship exists under the Restatement categories or §323 | Court held plaintiff produced no evidence of a special relationship; none existed; duty failed as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 26 A.3d 162 (Del. 2011) (Delaware Supreme Court framed employee‑spouse take‑home claims as nonfeasance; no duty absent misfeasance or special relationship)
- Riedel v. ICI Americas Inc., 968 A.2d 17 (Del. 2009) (applied Restatement analysis; employer’s failure to warn employee’s spouse was nonfeasance and no special relationship supported duty)
- In re Asbestos Litigation, 799 A.2d 1151 (Del. 2002) (Delaware decisions on manufacturer duty to warn and requisite knowledge for products claims)